This action amends the legal description of area navigation (RNAV) route Q-1 by adding two waypoints along the route. In addition, the route description is amended to match a standardized format by adding the appropriate state name to the waypoints, the name and the state of the Point Reyes, CA, navigation aid, and listing of the points in the proper order.

DATES:

Effective Date:0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

RNAV route Q-1 extends along the U.S. west coast between the Point Reyes, CA, VHF omnidirectional range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) aid and the ELMAA, WA, waypoint. The FAA is adding two waypoints along to route for air traffic control purposes. In addition, the route description is reformatted for standardization.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the legal description of RNAV route Q-1 to add two waypoints along the route and to standardize the description format. The ELENN, CA, waypoint is inserted between the existing ENVIE, CA, and EBINY, OR, waypoints for traffic flow metering with the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center. The TACOS, CA, waypoint is added between the existing ETCHY, CA, and ENVIE, CA, waypoints to provide connectivity with an RNAV arrival to Travis Air Force Base.

In addition, the order of the points as listed in the description of FAA Order 7400.9 is reversed to comply with the standard format that the points be listed from south-to-north. Also, the state names are added to the waypoint and the navigation aid names to comply with the standard format.

Since this action involves only editorial changes to the legal description of RNAV route Q-1, and does not change the dimensions or operating requirements of the affected route, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revises the legal description of an RNAV route to maintain currency.

United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311a. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:Authority:

This action establishes Class E Airspace at La Belle, FL, to accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at La Belle Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

On July 5, 2012, the FAA published in theFederal Registera notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at La Belle, FL (77 FR 39652) Docket No. FAA-2012-0586. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at La Belle, FL, to provide the controlled airspace required to accommodate the new RNAV GPS Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for La Belle Municipal Airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at La Belle Municipal Airport, La Belle, FL.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71:

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71 —DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:Authority:

In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its rules and regulations relating to the filing of privileged material in keeping with the Commission's efforts to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and the E-Government Act of 2002. First, the Commission establishes two categories of privileged material for filing purposes: Privileged material and critical energy infrastructure information. This revision will expand the ability to file electronically by permitting electronic filing of materials subject to Administrative Law Judge protective orders as appropriate. Second, the Commission revises its regulations to provide a single set of uniform procedures for filing privileged materials. These revisions continue the Commission's effort to reassess and streamline its regulations to ensure that they are efficient, effective and up to date.

Also, the Commission revises Rule 213(d) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which establishes the timeline for filing answers to motions, to clarify that the standard fifteen day reply time will not apply to motions requesting an extension of time or a shortened time period for action. Instead, the Commission proposes to set the time for responding to such motions at five days, unless another time period is established by notice based on the circumstances.

1. In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its rules and regulations relating to the filing of privileged material in keeping with the Commission's efforts to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and the E-Government Act of 2002. First, the Commission establishes two categories of privileged material for filing purposes: privileged material and critical energy infrastructure information (CEII). This revision will expand the ability to file electronically by permitting electronic filing of materials subject to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) protective orders as appropriate. Second, the Commission revises its regulations to provide a single set of uniform procedures for filing privileged materials. These revisions continue the Commission's effort to reassess and streamline its regulations to ensure that they are efficient, effective and up to date.

2. Also, the Commission revises Rule 213(d) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which establishes the timeline for filing answers to motions, to clarify that the standard fifteen day reply time will not apply to motions requesting an extension of time or a shortened time period for action. Instead, the Commission proposes to set the time for responding to such motions at five days, unless another time period is established by notice based on the circumstances.

I. BackgroundA. Electronic Filing Procedures

3. In 2000, the Commission first permitted filers to use the Internet to submit documents to the Commission.1Such submissions were limited to categories of documents specified by the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary), with the intention of gradually expanding the range of eligible documents.2In 2007, the Commission implemented eFiling 7.0 which permitted a much broader range of documents to be submitted through the eFiling interface.3In 2008, the Commission, in collaboration with the wholesale electric and gas quadrants of the North American Energy Standards Board and representatives from the Association of Oil Pipelines, implemented a set of standards to be used by companies in electronically filing tariff and tariff-related documents at the Commission.4Under the Commission's regulations, only “qualified documents” may be filed via the Internet, and the Secretary is authorized to specify which documents are qualified and to issue filing instructions.5A list of qualified documents is published on the Commission's Web site.6

4. The eFiling system plays an important role in the Commission's efforts to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires that agencies provide the option to submit information electronically, when practicable, as a substitute for paper.7Users of the Commission's eFiling system and related activities must register electronically through the Commission's eRegistration system.8Filing via the Internet is optional for eligible documents.9The eFiling system now is receiving a substantial majority of all documents filed at the Commission. The system is accessible through the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

9Rule 2001(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2001(a).

5. [Paragraph blank]

6. Currently, the Commission accepts through electronic filing all documents, including privileged material and CEII,10except for documents submitted pursuant to an ALJ's protective order and some forms.11The Commission's current procedures for submitting materials subject to ALJ protective orders require filers to submit an original copy of the document in hard copy or on electronic media, along with the requisite number of copies, pursuant to section 388.112 of the Commission's regulations. While the Commission permits electronic filing of documents subject to a claim of privilege not subject to an ALJ protective order, the Commission currently does not have a standard set of procedures for submitting such documents.

11Order No. 703, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,259 at P 9. The following are submitted through eForms: FERC Form No. 1, FERC Form No. 2, FERC Form No. 2-A, FERC Form No. 3-Q, FERC Form No. 6, FERC Form No. 6-Q, FERC Form No. 60, FERC Form No. 714, and Electric Quarterly Reports. FERC Form 1-F is currently not included in eForms.

7. The Commission's current complaint and answer regulations (sections 385.206 and 385.213) contain detailed requirements for submitting privileged materials. Under these regulations, a party filing a complaint or an answer with privileged and/or confidential material is required to submit a request for privileged treatment of documents, a public redacted document, a privileged unredacted document, and a proposed form of protective agreement.12The filer must serve the public, redacted copy on appropriate parties and other entities required to be served and must provide a copy of the non-public, unredacted material to any participant or entity whose name is on the official service list (compiled by the Secretary) and who has signed the protective agreement.

12See Astoria Generating Co., L.P.v.New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,136 FERC ¶ 61,155, at P 25 (2011) (Astoria). The Commission's filing requirements for CEII and privileged material are provided in the “Submission Guidelines” available via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov.

8. In recent years, the Commission has been receiving a larger number of requests for privileged treatment of documents not associated withcomplaints or answers.13The request for privileged treatment has in some cases delayed the ability of the Commission to process such filings because the Commission was required to issue special orders or notices to ensure that parties could obtain access to the privileged material they needed in order to be able to participate in the proceeding.14Particularly, in cases involving statutory deadlines, such delays affect the ability of parties to submit timely, well informed comments, as well as the Commission's ability to process those comments.

9. In its December 16, 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposed to revise its regulations to address two outstanding concerns.15First, the Commission proposed uniform procedures for filing privileged materials in any proceeding in which a right of intervention exists. The Commission proposed to (a) provide two categories of privileged material for filing purposes, namely categories for CEII and all other privileged materials, (b) set up uniform procedures for filing and accessing privileged materials in most proceedings with a right to intervene, based upon the current complaint/answer process in Rules 206 and 213,16and (c) consolidate the Commission's regulations for submitting privileged materials in proposed section 388.112.

10. Second, the Commission proposed to revise its answer regulations, Rule 213, to provide an opportunity for parties to file answers to requests for extension of the time to take action under the Commission's orders and regulations or seeking expedited action where the time to act on these requests may fall sooner than the standard 15 day answer date. To provide an opportunity for interested parties to respond and facilitate the Commission's response to such motions, the Commission proposed to shorten the answer period for these motions to five business days. In addition, the Commission proposed conforming revisions, in particular, revisions to the Secretary's delegated authority under 18 CFR 375.302(b), to clarify the Secretary's authority to address shortened answer periods for requests for extension of time, consistent with the delegated authority of other office directors.17

17See, e.g.,18 CFR 375.307(b)(1)(ii).

11. In response to the NOPR, American Public Gas Association (APGA), Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), Interstate Natural Gas Association (INGA), International Transmission Co. (ITC), MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (MidAmerican), North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Transmission Dependent Utility Systems (TDU)18submitted comments. EPSA and PJM support the Commission's proposal to consolidate and establish uniform procedures for filing privileged materials and establish two categories for filing purposes, citing efficient and easily implemented procedures to allow market participants to designate materials as confidential and provide assurance that commercially sensitive and other confidential information will be safe from inadvertent disclosure, without the need for procedural orders. The Commission will address other concerns raised in the comments in the discussion below.

12. In this Final Rule, the Commission largely adopts the NOPR proposal to consolidate the Commission's regulations for filing privileged materials in section 388.112 and establish procedures in that section for distribution of such materials pursuant to a protective agreement in proceedings with a right to intervene. The protective agreement provisions largely parallel the existing regulations governing complaints and answers. These regulations will expand those procedures to cover other types of filings, such as statutory public utility or pipeline filings, and protests in those filings, containing confidential information. With these revisions, the Commission is taking advantage of the technologies available to the Commission to safely and securely accept materials by designating them as privileged, while providing for limited use of the materials in proceedings in which other parties must review the materials, by requiring the filing party to make them available pursuant to a protective agreement. In instances where the filer elects to electronically file materials with a protective agreement, submission of the identical hard copy files to the Commission will no longer be necessary. Permitting privileged materials to be submitted via eFiling will facilitate entry of the documents into the Commission's document repository, eLibrary, and will make them available to staff conducting analysis of the documents. Electronic filing will simplify retrieval of the documents in the course of the Commission's duties because the documents may be accessed via the Commission electronic archive in eLibrary, and Commission staff will no longer have to retrieve hard copy documents from offsite document storage. This will avoid the resulting delay in obtaining materials.

13. The consolidated filing procedures, as well as the protective agreement provisions for proceedings in which a right to intervene exists are included in revised section 388.112. Revised section 388.112(a)(1) adopts the Commission's long-standing usage of the term “privileged materials” to refer to information subject to an outstanding claim of exemption from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), including CEII.19The changes adopted in this rule retain the disclaimer that by permitting the filing of privileged materials and treating the documents for which a privilege is claimed as nonpublic, the Commission is not making a determination on the merits as to any claim of privilege or CEII status.20Revised section 388.112(b) retains the requirement that a filer include a justification for privileged treatment in its filing, following the procedures posted on the Commission's Web site.21Revised section 388.112(b)(1) requires a person requesting privileged or CEII treatment to designate the material as privileged or CEII in an electronic filing, or clearly indicate a request for privileged treatment on a paper filing, with headings indicating privileged andCEII material.22Section 388.112(b)(1) states that a person requesting that a document filed with the Commission be treated as privileged or CEII must designate the document as privileged or CEII in making an electronic filing or clearly indicate a request for such treatment on a paper filing. The header of the first page of the cover sheet or transmittal letter and of the pages or portions of the document containing material for which privileged treatment is claimed should be clearly labeled in bold, capital lettering, indicating that it contains privileged, confidential and/or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, as appropriate, and marked “DO NOT RELEASE.”

19See also18 CFR 388.107(g); 18 CFR 388.113(c) (defining CEII as information that is exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA, providing that CEII be filed under section 388.112(b), and establishing specific procedures for making CEII available pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement).

20Seerevised section 388.112(c)(i).

21Seethe Submission Guidelines on the Documents and Filing link athttp://www.ferc.gov.

This means that, when a person files a document containing privileged material, that person must prominently indicate the fact that the filing contains privileged material, using an appropriate header on the cover page of the filing. In most cases, the header must be included on the accompanying filing letter or first page of a pleading or motion, and on the separate cover of any portion of the document that contains privileged material, such as an affidavit, exhibit, attachment, etc. In addition, the individual pages should be marked to indicate that the page contains privileged material, and the material identified on the page.

14. The revised regulations make special provision in proceedings featuring a right to intervene, including complaint, certificate, merger and rate filings, to facilitate review of the privileged materials by intervening parties. In such proceedings, a person filing privileged material is required to include a public, redacted copy of the filing and a proposed form of protective agreement and serve these items on the appropriate persons, that is, those required by Commission rule or order, or by law.23The revised regulations provide that the filing person will thereafter provide a copy of the privileged materials to interveners that request the material and execute the protective agreement within five days or file an objection.24

23Revised section 388.112(b)(2). Under revised section 388.112(b)(2)(ii) service is to be made to persons to be served under Rule 206(c), 18 CFR 385.206(c) (complaints) or Rule 213, 18 CFR 385.213(c)(5) (answers), or otherwise as appropriate.

24Trial Staff, as identified in 18 CFR 385.102(b)(2), should be treated similarly to other persons making a request.

15. The Commission's Model Protective Order may be used as a guide for protective agreements, and the Commission's prior orders may also provide guidance as to how to address particular confidentiality concerns.25The protective agreement should be self implementing and not require action or approval by the Commission. That is, persons wishing to rely on privileged material to support their filings should make provision for timely and adequate review of these materials under the protective agreement by intervening parties. While the Commission will resolve disputes to the extent necessary to carry out its statutory duties, the Commission intends that these standardized procedures will minimize the need for Commission action, with the accompanying delay in processing filings and applications subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Where a person wishing to use privileged materials has reason to anticipate objection or difficulty in such disclosure and review, it may be appropriate to negotiate in advance with likely intervenors and attempt to resolve any disputes and come to agreement prior to making the filing. If acceptable terms for use of the material in a proceeding are negotiated prior to filing, the possibility of delay in processing the filing may be avoided.

25The Model Protective Order developed by the Commission's Office of Administrative Litigation is available athttp://www.ferc.gov/legal/admin-lit/model-protective-order.doc. See also Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities,Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252, at P 393 (2007).

16. The public version of the filing should be prepared with only the privileged information redacted to the extent practicable. If a document or filing contains both public and privileged material, the Commission expects filers to file a public version in which the privileged material has been removed or redacted thereby making the non-privileged portion of a document available for use by the Commission and participants in the proceeding.26

26Astoria,136 FERC ¶ 61,155 at P 25 (requiring the submission of a public redacted copy of documents that contain both privileged and public information).

17. The revised regulations incorporate exceptions for landowner lists, certain cultural resources and liquefied natural gas facility (LNG) information, and proceedings set for hearing or settlement procedures in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.27Thus, filers are not automatically required to provide intervenors with such material.28The revised regulations retain procedures to address practical and confidentiality concerns with the submission of these materials, due to difficulty in copying and manipulating the material (i.e., maps or spreadsheets presenting voluminous data). To that end, the revised regulations retain provisions permitting the Commission to request full size maps in licensing applications under section 4.32(d) of its rules and regulations.29

27Under revised section 388.112(b)(2)(v), a participant's access to privileged material submitted in a trial-type hearing or for settlement purposes continues to be governed by the presiding official's protective order, according to policies established by the Commission's Office of Administrative Law Judges.SeePart 385 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Subpart D, 18 CFR 385.401,et seq.(hearing procedures), and 18 CFR 385.602,et seq.

2918 CFR 4.32(d). Landowner lists, cultural resource information required in sections 380.12(f) and 380.16(f), LNG information filed under sections 380.12(m) and (o), forms filed with the Commission and other documents not covered under proposed section 388.112 disclosure provisions may be sought pursuant to a FOIA or CEII request, in accordance with section 388.108 or section 388.113, as applicable.

18. Conforming changes were made throughout the Commission's regulations, including revisions to reflect that section 388.112 provides the procedures for filing privileged materials. To simplify and clarify the regulations, the Commission largely avoided directly referencing section 388.112. Since section 388.112 is intended to apply to all submittals and filings containing privileged or CEII material, it is unnecessary to specify the provision that applies in the many parts of the regulations that refer to filing of privileged materials.30Consequently, we adopt the NOPR proposals to remove duplicate provisions for filing privileged materials and consolidate and adopt the proposed provisions relating to submittal of and access to privileged material in section 388.112, as revised and discussed below.31

30Changes to consolidate and supersede current procedures for filing privileged material are made to 18 CFR 33.8(a) and 33.9 (merger procedures), 18 CFR 35.37(f) (market based rate applications), 18 CFR 34.7 (filing requirements for application for approval of issuance of securities and assumptions of liabilities), 18 CFR 348.2(a) (oil pipeline market power application procedures), Rule 206, 18 CFR 385.206(e) (complaint procedures), and Rule 213, 18 CFR 385.213(c)(5) (answers). In addition, changes for clarity and to reflect the consolidation of privileged filing procedures are made to 18 CFR 4.39(e), 5.29(c), 16.8(g), 157.21(h), 157.34(d)(4), and 385.606(f) and (j), and changes are proposed to 18 CFR 388.113(d) (1) and (2) to reference procedures in paragraph (d)(4).

31In certain instances, we have kept the reference as a guide to practitioners in a particular Commission program.

19. The Commission responds to the comments filed in response to the NOPR below.

A. Designation of Confidential Materials as “Privileged”

20. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to continue its long-standing practice of referring to confidential material as privileged.

1. Comments

21. A number of commenters object to the scope of the revised regulations, arguing that the privileged filing procedures, in particular the disclosure procedures developed for proceedings with a right to intervene, should not apply to materials eligible for common law evidentiary privileges such as attorney-client or work product privileges or CEII, which are subject to the disclosure procedures in 18 CFR 388.113.

2. Commission Response

22. The Commission disagrees with suggestions made by EEI and INGAA that use of the term privilege detracts from a filing party's ability to assert a common law evidentiary privilege. The Commission's power to withhold information from mandatory public disclosure is established by FOIA and presented in its rules and regulations, chiefly 18 CFR 388.107. The Commission's long-standing practice has been to refer to materials subject to an outstanding claim of exemption from mandatory disclosure as privileged.32The Commission is not aware of any confusion arising out of use of this term with materials claimed to be subject to a common law privilege, confidential business trade secrets or CEII. These types of materials are already addressed in the Commission's FOIA regulations in the categories of materials for which a filer may request an exemption from mandatory disclosure under FOIA.33

33In particular, see 18 CFR 388.107(d) (incorporating FOIA exemption 4 for trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential); 18 CFR 388.107(g) (records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, including information that could interfere with enforcement proceedings or deprive a person of a right to fair trial, if produced).See also Cargill, Inc.v.Saltville Gas Storage Co., L.L.C.,99 FERC ¶ 61,043, at PP 12-13 (2002) (describing privileged treatment under section 388.107(d) and FOIA exemption 4);Critical Energy Infrastructure Information,Order No. 630, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,140, at P 14,order on reh'g,Order No. 630-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,147 (2003) (discussing privileged treatment for CEII under FOIA exemption 4, and exemption 2 for “records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency” and exemption 7 for certain law enforcement information, including information which might jeopardize a person's life or safety, if disclosed).

23. The Commission likewise disagrees with EEI's and INGAA's suggestions that failure to make separate provision for information subject to a claim of common law privilege will create a risk of improper disclosure and loss of privilege.34Indeed, as we stated in the NOPR, the term privileged material “is not intended to detract from any person's right to assert a common law privilege, e.g., attorney-client or attorney work product privilege.”35More importantly, the Commission is not requiring any filing party to submit materials that are subject to an evidentiary privilege in support of their filings or any confidential material. The choice whether to include such materials is left to the person making the filing whether to rely on such materials subject to the protective agreement disclosure provisions established in this Final Rule.36If a party is asked to produce information in an investigation or discovery request that it believes is subject to a common law privilege, the proper course of action is to file a notice of that party's objection to producing the document, identifying the document and the justification of the claim, to facilitate review of the claim of privilege in a confidential setting to determine if the claim is justified.37

36We note that filing information for which a common law privilege is asserted is likely to breach the confidentiality necessary to maintain the privilege.See generally McCormick on Evidence§ 93 (2007).

24. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to retain its current regulations (sections 285.206, 385.213 and 388.112) under which privileged and CEII information are subject to the same requirements with respect to disclosure.

25. EEI contends that CEII should be a separate category subject to separate disclosure procedures, as provided for in 18 CFR 388.113.

26. We do not find that using the same regulatory framework for “privileged materials” and “CEII” in section 388.112 will cloud the procedures in 18 CFR 388.113 for handling CEII or that continuation of these procedures will not provide adequate protection for CEII. The Commission's regulations specify that to qualify as CEII, the material must be “exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”38Thus, CEII is already a subset of privileged material under the Commission's regulations. Any party relying on CEII information in a filing needs to be prepared to provide that information to intervenors that need the information to understand the filing.

3818 CFR 388.113(c)(1).

27. We also disagree with EEI that CEII should be treated separately and distributed within a Commission proceeding under procedures modeled after the current CEII procedures in 18 CFR 388.113, providing for review of privilege requests with a determination.39A filing party that has reason to question whether a party has a legitimate need to review information in a Commission proceeding may file an objection to disclosure to that person under section 388.112(b)(2)(iii)),40which is equivalent to the existing and retained provision for notice of FOIA requests in section 388.112(d).41

39EEI at 4.

40This provision states: “A filer, or any other person, may file an objection to disclosure, generally or to a particular person or persons who have sought intervention.” Indeed, this provision provides greater rights to the submitter than section 388.113, which does not provide for notice to the submitter prior to the determination by the CEII Coordinator.

41This provision states: “When a FOIA or CEII requester seeks a document for which privilege or CEII status has been claimed, or when the Commission itself is considering release of such information, the Commission official who will decide whether to release the information or any other appropriate Commission official will notify the person who submitted the document and give the person an opportunity (at least five calendar days) in which to comment in writing on the request. A copy of this notice will be sent to the requester.”

28. The Commission is not changing its rules for acquiring materials through a FOIA or CEII request, and materials that may be sought through the protective agreement procedures established herein also remain available through FOIA and CEII requests where appropriate. However, the Commission has determined that reliance on the existing CEII procedures exclusively would serve to delay the processing of filings and other pleadings in Commission proceedings. To facilitate timely distribution of materials without the potential for delay pending Commission review, participants who choose to submit CEII information as part of a Commission proceeding must follow the procedures provided insection 388.112. We find this a reasonable method to permit the use of such materials by the Commission and participants in Commission proceedings while protecting the confidentiality of the information.42

29. The Commission proposed that its existing procedures regarding protective agreements in its complaint and answer regulations be applied to other filings. Under these procedures, the filing party must provide a “proposed form of protective agreement to each entity that is to be served.”43Although the Commission pointed to the Model Protective Order developed by the Commission's Office of Administrative Litigation as a guide in developing protective agreements, it did not propose to require a uniform protective agreement.

4318 CFR 385.206(e)(2), 385.213(c)(5)(i)(ii).

1. Comments

30. Several commenters ask the Commission to establish one or more standard protective agreements, based on the Model Protective Order or tailored to meet particular circumstances.44APGA predicts that, absent such a requirement, filers may attempt to frustrate the interests of requesting parties, who have limited time to respond. ITC supports the Commission's proposal that the proposed protective agreement be self implementing and not require action by the Commission. ITC nevertheless supports use of the Model Protective Order, except when modifications are justified or no party objects. TDUs note that the NOPR does not provide guidance on what provisions may be appropriate for a protective agreement, and notes that clarification will help ensure customer access to information and avoid disputes.45TDUs advocate adoption of the Model Protective Order as a basis for a protective agreement, with a requirement that parties justify any change.

31. MidAmerican suggests refinements to the requirement that a proposed form of protective agreement be served on each entity that is required to be served with the filing, arguing that service need not be required after the first time the protective agreement is used.46In particular, MidAmerican argues that such a requirement is not needed when a party is using information that it obtained using the protective agreement provided by the original filer.

46MidAmerican at 4.

32. APGA urges the Commission to require that a party may execute a non-conforming agreement under protest, with issues to be resolved at a later date by the Commission.47TDUs likewise argue that parties should have access to materials while any objection is outstanding. TDUs ask the Commission to ensure access to materials during negotiations over terms of delivery, so that a party challenging a protective agreement may still participate effectively in the proceeding. TDUs state that such an approach will permit a party to participate meaningfully in the relevant docket without sacrificing the opportunity to test a filing party's privilege claims.48

47APGA at 3.

48TDUs at 5.

33. APGA urges the Commission to lessen the requirements for signing the protective agreement and receiving the privileged materials and permit any person to whom service is required under the regulations to seek access, rather than require filing of an intervention.49According to APGA, requiring a person to draft and file an intervention wastes time and should not be a condition to receiving the material. APGA argues that the fact that a person is required to be served justifies access to the material. EEI, on the other hand, asks that the Commission not require release of privileged material to persons or organizations that have not been granted intervenor status.50EEI seeks to avoid conflict with the Commission's regulations that permit a party 15 days to oppose a motion to intervene. EEI asks the Commission to clarify that intervention in one sub-docket would not provide the right to access material in another sub-docket.51

49APGA at 3-4.

50EEI at 8.

51EEI at 8.

34. APGA argues that the Commission's proposal requiring delivery of privileged materials within five days after a protective agreement is signed is insufficient to ensure that interested persons have timely access to privileged materials filed in pipeline filings due to the short (30-day) statutory action period.52APGA does not believe that its suggestions prejudice the rights of filers to protect privileged material, but are intended to facilitate meaningful access by interested entities.53

52APGA at 2 (citing NGA section 4, 15 U.S.C. §§ 717c(d) and (e)).

53APGA at 5.

35. Citing procedures developed in applying the Model Protective Order, TDUs ask the Commission to clarify that the burden of proof is on the party asserting a claim of privilege in any dispute of privileged status. TDUs also question whether the provision permitting a party to object to the terms in a protective agreement is effective, given statutory deadlines. TDUs ask the Commission to specify limits on the terms that may be included in a protective agreement, so that parties will not be forced to agree to unduly restrictive access or engage in fruitless litigation. TDUs argue that this is needed because, unlike in a proceeding overseen by an administrative law judge, the Commission cannot delay a statutory deadline to provide time to resolve a dispute.54

54TDUs at 4.

2. Commission Responsea. Standard Protective Agreement

36. The Commission declines to adopt a standard protective agreement or provide detailed guidance as to appropriate departures or additions to the Model Protective Order in this proceeding, in light of the need for flexibility in handling different types of privileged material. In the NOPR, the Commission suggested that parties filing privileged materials in a proceeding with a right to intervene may use the Office of Administrative Litigation's Model Protective Order as a guide for protective agreements.55Parties choosing to use a protective agreement based on the Model Protective Order may avoid potential litigation over the terms of the agreement that may delay the processing of their filing. For example, disputes that cannot be resolved prior to filing or through the protective agreement procedures may lead to further procedures such as suspending a filing, setting the proceeding for hearing, deficiency letters, and requests for additional procedures or information.

37. In the event a protective agreement is protested, the Commission has reviewed proposed protective orders in other contexts and provided for appropriate additions to address particular confidentiality concerns.56Parties wishing to file privileged material may consult the Commission'sprior orders for approaches that have been employed to address particular concerns that arose in prior proceedings.

38. APGA expresses concern that a participant may be bound by undesirable terms of a protective agreement, prior to having the opportunity to object. We do not find that signing a protective agreement should result in a waiver of the right to challenge the privileged status of the information. This procedure ensures solely that the case can be processed, not that it result in a waiver of any procedural rights. We note that the Model Protective Order contains procedures under which the signatory reserves its right to challenge the privileged status of documents covered by the agreement, and we encourage parties to include such provisions in their protective agreements. Should a protective agreement purport to contain such a waiver requriement, a party may preserve its rights by filing an objection under section 388.112(b)(2)(iii) and the Commission can then require the protective agreement be revised.

39. TDU's are concerned that the right to object to a protective agreement may not be effective given statutory deadlines. As indicated above, the Commission has procedures that may be used to resolve such disputes fairly.

c. Requirement To File an Intervention

40. We decline to adopt the revision proposed by APGA that a filing party must provide privileged materials to any person to whom service is required on request, rather than only those who have filed an intervention. As Mid-American suggests, the regulations provide that parties who are entitled to receive service will receive a copy of the filing with the protective order when served.57It is not too great a burden to require such parties to intervene prior to being given a copy of the privileged information. Filing an intervention is not a great burden. Indeed, the Commission has provided for an electronic document-less form of intervention that can be filled out very quickly. The requirement for intervention ensures that copies of the confidential material are provided only to those with sufficient interest in the proceeding and provides the Commission with information about a party's interest in the privileged materials in the event an objection to disclosure is filed.

57Section 388.112(b)(2)(ii) (“the filer must provide the public version of the document and its proposed form of protective agreement to each entity that is required to be served with the filing”).

41. We likewise reject EEI's suggestion that materials should not be provided until an intervention has been granted. We do not believe that lack of intervenor status alone provides justification for refusing to provide the privileged materials.58Furthermore, waiting for intervention to be granted could unnecessarily delay an interested person's access to privileged materials. As APGA notes, this could be a particular burden in Natural Gas Act cases which must be decided within 30 days. The intervention itself will provide the party filing privileged materials with information to determine whether a requesting party has an interest to support disclosure in the event that an objection to disclosure is filed under section 388.112(d)(iii).

58Under Rule 214, an intervenor obtains party status fifteen days after a timely intervention is filed, if no opposition is filed. 18 CFR 385.203.

d. Other Issues

42. In response to EEI's inquiry whether a protective agreement may apply in separate subdockets, the filer should determine whether a protective agreement signed in one subdocket is sufficient for the information that may be produced in another subdocket. The different character of such information may require a somewhat different form of protective agreement.

43. TDU argues that the burden of proof should be on the party seeking privileged status. This rulemaking does not change existing procedures regarding assignment of burdens. While the determination as to the applicability of the privileged designation is not a hearing with formal burdens of proof, the applicant needs to justify why the information is confidential under the FOIA categories.59

5918 CFR 388.112(d) (providing an applicant for privilege treatment the ability to respond to a requested disclosure).

D. Consistency With Discovery Procedures Used in Administrative Proceedings

44. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that, for filings made prior to hearing, the party filing the privileged material will propose a form of protective agreement. However, in proceedings set for trial-type hearing, the NOPR proposed to leave intact the authority of the ALJ to administer the hearing and determine the appropriate scope of a protective order.

1. Comments

45. TDUs suggest that the Commission is inconsistent in removing the designation “Protected Materials” covered by an ALJ-approved protective order and treating these materials as privileged. It asserts that an ALJ's protective order may cover a broader range of materials than filings in proceedings not set for hearing. TDUs explain that, in discovery, the term protected materials refers to materials that customarily are treated by a participant as sensitive or proprietary, which are not available to the public and which, if disclosed freely, would subject the participant to competitive harm.60TDUs ask the Commission to clarify that eliminating the category “protected materials” is for filing purposes and does not expand the definition of privileged materials pursuant to section 388.112.61EPSA states that establishing separate procedures for materials provided pursuant to a protective order issued by an ALJ may lead to confusion and inadvertent disclosure.

60TDUs at 8 & n.5.

61TDUs at 9.

2. Commission Response

46. Revised section 388.112(b)(2)(v), adopted in this proceeding, states, “For material filed in proceedings set for trial-type hearing or settlement judge proceedings, a participant's access to material for which privileged treatment is claimed is governed by the presiding official's protective order.” The term protected material is a colloquial term that some parties apply to materials covered by a protective order. For consistency, the Commission has used the word “privileged,” as it existed in the regulations prior to this rule, to refer to all material for which confidential treatment is claimed. But the use of the term privileged does not change the scope of material eligible for confidential treatment.

47. TDUs assert that the discovery materials that may be protected by an administrative law judge's protective order include materials that customarily are treated by a participant as sensitive or proprietary, which are not available to the public and which, if disclosed freely, would subject the participant to competitive harm. This description is comparable to the type of information that qualifies for confidential treatment under FOIA Exemption No. 4, which protects information where disclosure is likely “to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.”62We therefore find no reason to apply a different standard to materials collected during discovery than filed materials in proceedings not in hearing.63

63Indeed, it would be inconsistent for the Commission to use a different standard for defining material submitted in an application compared with material submitted through an ALJ proceeding. The same FOIA provisions apply to both sets of information and an FOIA request can be filed for material submitted during discovery in an administrative proceeding.

E. Procedures for Distributing Privileged Information

48. The NOPR proposed procedures obtaining access to material that is filed as privileged in complaint proceedings and in any proceeding with a right to intervene. The Commission proposed that any participant or person filing an intervention in the proceeding may request the filer to provide a copy of the complete, non-public version of the document, by providing an executed copy of the protective agreement and showing appropriate party, participant or intervenor status. The proposed regulations provide that the filer provide a copy of the complete, non-public document to the requesting person within five days of receiving the request, if no objection is filed.

1. Comments

49. To provide adequate due process for responses to requests for information, EEI asks the Commission to modify the requirement that confidential information be released “within” five days, to a requirement that the information not be released until the 5th business day, in order to permit parties to object, and suggests the Commission provide a bit more time for objections to be lodged.64EEI notes that in the NOPR the Commission proposed to revise 18 CFR 388.112 to give parties that have submitted privileged material to FERC staff at least five calendar days to respond to requests for information and a separate five calendar days to respond to a proposed disclosure.See18 CFR 388.112(c)(2). EEI notes that the Commission has not afforded the same protection for information filed under section 388.112(b)(2) and states that the Commission should apply the same protective procedures to all privileged materials submitted to staff or to the Commission.65To provide adequate due process rights for responses to requests for information, EEI states that the Commission should withhold a proposed release of confidential information if the filing party files notice of intent to seek judicial review to block the release.66

64EEI at 9.

65Id.

66EEI at 10.

50. TDUs object to the five day delay in delivering privileged materials after receipt of an executed copy of the non-disclosure agreement; instead they request delivery by the next business day. TDUs argue that delay prejudices the party seeking the information, by providing limited time for review.67APGA similarly recommends that the proposed 5-day period for delivering privileged materials be shortened to 24 hours. APGA states that it only takes minutes to deliver the non-redacted version which was filed with the Commission and there is no basis for delay, given the short time frame to review and address the privileged material in a pleading.68APGA states that, because the contents of suspension orders may depend on the contents of protests, that it is not sufficient for protesting parties to receive the material at or after the intervention deadline. APGA suggests a typical protest schedule in which a section 4 rate case is noticed after five days, interventions are due within 13 days and an order issued in 30, and asserts that there is no way to secure and review the filing, draft an intervention, execute the protective agreement and prepare a protest based on the privileged material.69

67TDUs at 5.

68APGA at 4.

69Id.at 4-5.

51. INGAA objects to its reading of the proposed regulations to require service of “fully redacted” documents. According to INGAA, redacting an entire document can be burdensome to the filer and circulation of the document does not provide any benefit to recipients.70INGAA asks that filers be permitted to comply with the requirement in proposed section 388.112(b)(1) by submitting in its cover page requesting privileged treatment, a statement that the entire document qualifies for privileged, confidential and/or CEII treatment and a short title or description of the type of information it contains. INGAA asks that such a disclosure meet the Commission's objective under 388.112(b)(1) to provide a redacted version “to the extent practicable.”71

70INGAA at 5.

71Id.at 6.

52. EEI responds to the Commission's observation in the NOPR that a failure by the filing party to afford intervenors a meaningful opportunity to review confidential information under a protective agreement could lead to suspension of the filing, rejection, or other delays in processing an application. EEI acknowledges some delay may be necessary to respond to requests for confidential information, but states that such delay should not be punitive and a filer should not be prejudiced through rejection or suspension, as long as the confidential information designation and ensuing objection to release of the information are made in good faith.72

72EEI at 10.

53. According to EEI, parties seeking to justify non-disclosure of privileged materials should only be required to submit a brief, good-faith articulation of the reason for non-disclosure, but that in the event the designation is challenged or anyone seeks access to the information, the filing party will have the right to expand and supplement the justification prior to Commission action.73

73EEI at 8.

54. ITC suggests that, in the event that a delay in disclosure is caused by a dispute over the protective agreement, a party would not be harmed if the dispute were to result in a late filing, such as an answer to a complaint.74

74ITC at 3.

2. Commission Responsea. Five Day Distribution

55. Various parties filed comments expressing concerns with the distribution procedures. Several parties raise issues with respect to the requirement to distribute privileged information within five days. EEI wants to mandate that the information not be released in less than five days, while TDU and APGA argue that the five day requirement should be shortened. We find that the five day requirement establishes a reasonable balance between all the interests.

56. With respect to EEI's suggestion that the five days be made mandatory to permit parties to object to disclosure, we see no reason to adopt this rule for all filings. As other commenters note, early release of information is preferable because it provides other parties with more time to evaluate the filing. To the extent that EEI's concern is that the filing party is claiming confidentiality for third-party information in its possession, the filing party ought to inform the third-party before filing, should consult with the third-party as to the appropriate form of protective agreement for the information, and may want to choose the full five days to permit a response.

57. We similarly reject the TDU and APGA arguments that the informationbe disclosed in less than five days through electronic delivery. While immediate electronic service may be appropriate for certain materials, a filer may have a legitimate interest in not providing such material electronically. Even in natural gas cases, five days from the date of the request should provide sufficient opportunity to obtain and review such information.75In those cases in which a party shows that given the extensive nature of the privileged information, it did not have adequate time to review the material, the Commission has procedures to ensure an adequate review period.

75As APGA has noted, many of these parties will be served by the pipeline and therefore will have immediate notice that confidential information is included. Moreover, the Commission issues notices of these filings very shortly after they are filed.

b. Redaction of Entire Document

58. INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that the requirement for filing a redacted public copy still permits, in appropriate circumstances, the filing party in the transmittal letter to provide a description of the document and identify the entire document as privileged. The regulation requires that a redacted public version be filed, to the extent practicable. The regulation, therefore, would not preclude a filer from identifying the entire document as privileged if it, in good faith, is unable to separate sensitive or confidential material from the remainder of the document.

c. Opportunity to Respond

59. The Commission declines to adopt EEI's suggestion that filing parties be provided with an opportunity to respond to requests for information by arguing their justification for withholding material. Under the Commission's current regulations a filing party must include in its filing a justification for privileged treatment, demonstrating that the material is exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA according to the categories defined in section 388.107 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. The procedures promulgated in this proceeding continue that practice. If a filing party objects to disclosure to a particular party, it may file an objection under section 388.112(b)(2)(iii) as appropriate. Furthermore, a non-filing party may object to the privileged status of the materials under review. The Commission may address each of these objections by issuing an order, by which time the parties should have had time to assert their interests in their pleadings. However, we emphasize that failure to resolve such disputes may result in delay in processing the filing.

d. Need for Additional Procedures

60. EEI is concerned that delaying approval of filings due to the submission of privileged information may be “punitive.” The Commission needs to provide due process to allow for adequate review of all filings and that includes filings containing privileged information. If parties can demonstrate that they have not had sufficient time to review a filing, the Commission may adopt whatever procedures it deems appropriate to ensure due process to all parties. Indeed, the Commission is adopting this rule to clarify procedures for handling privileged material to expedite proceedings. As noted in the NOPR, the Commission previously has preceded on an ad hoc basis when addressing filings (other than complaints and answers) containing privileged information which has contributed to delay in the Commission's ability to process such filings expeditiously. To permit parties to participate fully in these proceedings, the Commission has issued special orders or notices to ensure access to privileged material.76By clarifying the filing procedures for privileged information, this rule will reduce the need to use additional processes and therefore should expedite, not delay, proceedings.

61. NERC asks the Commission to clarify that the procedures proposed in the NOPR will not apply to NERC's filing of a notice of penalty, to filings of remediated issues in a Find, Fix, Track and Report spreadsheet, or to other communications or exchanges of documents between NERC and FERC that are not made through formal filings.77

77NERC at 3 (discussing FPA section 215(e); 18 CFR 39.7(c)(2)).

62. According to NERC, it submits notices of penalty and Find, Fix, Track reports on a monthly basis, and points out that it treats such materials as non-public under 18 CFR 39.7(b)(4). NERC's practice is to file some portion of the notices and reports as non-public, absent a public hearing sought by the Commission or a penalized entity under section 39.7(e)(1 and 7). NERC requests that the Commission clarify that NERC is not required to submit a protective agreement with Notice of Penalty or Find, Fix, Track filings or other communications or documents that are not exchanged through formal filings. According to NERC, the Commission's decision to review a Notice of Penalty may include instructions for NERC to submit a protective agreement.

63. NERC also asks the Commission to clarify that NERC's regular nonpublic exchanges of information exchanged through means other than formal filings do not require a protective agreement.78

78Id.

2. Commission Response

64. We agree that NERC need not submit a protective agreement when filing its notices of penalties. The protective agreement procedures apply in the case of regulations that apply to “any proceeding to which a right to intervention exists.” With respect to NERC's filing of notices of penalty, no right to intervene exists unless the Commission issues an order initiating review of the filing and provides for public intervention and comment.79If the Commission establishes such a proceeding, it will establish whatever procedures with respect to the materials are necessary.

7918 CFR § 39.7(e)(1);see also North American Electric Reliability Corp.,Order Initiating Review of Notice of Penalty, 136 FERC ¶ 61,135 (2011);Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization,Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at PP 510-11 (2006) (noting that Commission conducts initial review of NERC Notice of Penalty as nonpublic pursuant to its FPA Part 1b investigatory authority, until an on the record hearing is provided for).

65. As for NERC's remaining concern with respect to materials distributed in informal settings, NERC states that the communications that it refers to are not made through formal filings. Consequently, we confirm that the protective agreement requirement does not apply. This rulemaking does not revise the applicable FOIA procedures and the Commission will continue to abide by those procedures.

G. Electronic Filing Procedures

66. EEI proposes various revisions to the Commission's electronic filing procedures, such as the types of media that may be used, extension of electronic filing procedures to certain Commission forms under 18 CFR 385.2011. In addition, EEI supports the Commission broadly preserving the option to file on paper for parties that need such an option and encourages theCommission to minimize requirements that limit flexibility.

67. Revising the Commission's electronic filing procedures and treatment of Forms is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and the Commission is not prepared to implement such changes in this proceeding. Filings may still be made on paper except in those circumstances (tariffs, forms, etc) where the Commission requires electronic filing.

H. Prospective Effect

68. EEI asks the Commission to clarify that the new regulations apply prospectively only as to new dockets or sub-dockets and that parties that have already made filings should not be compelled to provide a protective agreement after-the-fact.80

80EEI at 7-8.

69. We agree that these regulations will apply only to filings made after their implementation. With respect to filings made previously, the procedures adopted in those proceedings will need to be followed.

I. Changes to Text of Proposed Regulations

70. The Commission has made three changes to the text of the revised regulations in response to commenters' suggestions for changes in the regulatory text, as discussed below. The remaining suggestions are also discussed in turn below.

1. Changes Adopted

71. MidAmerican proposes the following underlined clarifications to reflect that a single protective agreement may apply to all materials filed in a proceeding: “The filer must provide the public version of the document and its proposed form of protective agreement, if an applicable protective agreement does not currently exist, to each entity that is required to be served with the filing. If an applicable protective agreement currently exists, the filer must identify where the protective agreement can be obtained.”

72. The Commission agrees, based on the provisions in the Model Protective Order, that one protective agreement may be drafted to apply to all materials in a proceeding. Consequently, we have revised the final regulations to accommodate such use.

74. Section 34.7 states that applications for authorization to issue securities and assumptions of liability under section 204 should be filed in accordance with the filing procedures posted on the Commission's web site, in reflection of the Commission's moving such instructions out of its regulations and placing them on the internet. Consistent with other regulations, we add a sentence to section 34.7 to reflect that privileged materials may be filed electronically.

75. EEI proposes that the Commission consult with the Counsel on Environmental Quality as to its proposal to remove the requirement in sections 380.12 and 380.16 that “The cover and relevant pages or portions of the report should be clearly labeled in bold lettering: `CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION—DO NOT RELEASE.' ”81According to EEI, the Commission must consult with the Counsel on Environmental Quality before changing National Environmental Policy Act regulations, including 18 CFR Part 380.82

81EEI at 10. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to replace this with the general requirement in 388.112 that “The cover page and relevant pages or portions of the filing document containing material for which privileged treatment is claimed should be clearly labeled in bold, capital lettering, indicating that it contains privileged, confidential and/or CEII, as appropriate, and marked `DO NOT RELEASE.' ”

76. The NOPR proposed to adopt generic instructions in section 388.112 to permit a party to customize their headings to reflect the privilege being claimed and identify the material in question. Thus, the instruction may apply to either confidential trade secrets or CEII. As for EEI's concern, while we see no inconsistency with the revised instruction and the requirements in Part 380, we will not revise the labeling instructions in the current versions of sections 380.12(f)(4) and 380.16(f)(4), in order not to run afoul of the environmental regulation review requirements.

2. Proposed Changes Not Accepted

77. MidAmerican cites inconsistency in section 388.112, which refers to “procedures for filing and obtaining privileged and CEII material” rather than “privileged material.”83Since CEII is a sub-set of privileged materials, we see no confusion as the procedures we establish here apply to both, and we will not make the requested change.84

83MidAmerican at 3.

84Nevertheless, clarifying changes were made throughout the regulations.

78. Mid-American objects to what is sees as inconsistent usage, noting the lack of a reference to “Privileged Materials” in section 388.112(b) and the requirements instead to label a filed document, “indicating that it contains privileged, confidential and/or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, as appropriate, and marked `DO NOT RELEASE.' ”85According to Mid-American use of the term confidential and describing material as privileged make the section hard to follow. The Commission disagrees, but clarifies that the provision was drafted to permit the use and filing of several categories of privileged material and permit filing parties to customize the notification that a filing contains privileged material to fit their circumstances.

85MidAmerican at 3.

79. TDUs state that the Commission should include a cross-reference to Rule 410, 18 CFR 385.410, and section 388.112 in Rules 206 and 213 to avoid ambiguity, 18 CFR 385.206 and 18 CFR 385.213. According to TDUs, a cross-reference would clarify that the treatment of information for which a claim of confidentiality or privilege is asserted will be governed by Rule 410 and section 388.112. In addition TDUs support retaining the reference to Rule 410 and section 388.112 in Rule 606, 18 CFR § 385.606, governing the treatment of privileged and protected information in settlement proceedings.86

86TDUs at 9.

80. The Commission's intention is to consolidate its regulations for filing privileged materials in section 388.112. Consequently, we found it unnecessary to reference section 388.112 as the regulation describing how one should file privileged materials, because section 388.112 is the only regulation defining how such materials should be handled.

III. Revised Time for Filing Answers to Motions for Extensions of Time or Expedited Action Dates

81. To facilitate the Commission's ability to respond to motions requesting extensions of time or shortened time to take actions required under the Commission's orders or regulation, the Commission proposed to revise Rule 213 in its Rules of Practice and Procedure to provide that answers to motions requesting an extension of time as well as motions seeking to expedite a deadline, that is, shorten the period of time in which action is to occur, will bedue in five days.87The Commission explained that frequently, parties filing such motions do not know 15 days before a filing is due that they require a change in compliance time periods, and these motions are not controversial or complicated. The Commission stated that, with a 15-day comment period, the Secretary of the Commission (under delegated authority) has had to issue notices shortening comment periods on such motions. Since motions regarding the time period for responding are not controversial or complex, five days appeared to provide a reasonable time for responses that will eliminate the burden and additional delay created by the need for the Secretary to issue a notice shortening the comment period.

87See revised Rule 213, 18 CFR 385.213.

82. In addition, the NOPR proposed a related change to the Secretary's delegation authority under 18 CFR 375.302(b) to clarify that the Secretary of the Commission has authority to address requests for shortened answer periods and expedite requests to extend or shorten the times to take actions consistent with the delegated authority of other office directors.88Exercise of such authority will help expedite requests for extension of time.

88See18 CFR 375.307(b)(1)(ii).

1. Comments

83. INGAA, APGA, PJM, and ITC generally support the Commission's proposal to reduce the time for responding to requests for extensions of time. APGA finds the five day answer period appropriate in most cases.89PJM suggests lengthening the time for response to five business days. While supporting the five days, ITC suggests that for circumstances where action may be needed in a shorter time period, the filing party be permitted to request a shorter time period in its filing.

89MidAmerican notes that the summary of section 385.213(d) set forth in P 4 of the NOPR states that the revised regulations apply to all motions requesting an extension of time, not just to those “for which the existing time for compliance may fall fifteen days or fewer from the date of filing.”

84. INGAA objects to the removal of the provision in the secretary's delegated authority in 18 CFR 375.302(b) stating, “Absent a waiver, no answers [to complaints, petitions, motions and other documents] will be required to be filed by a party within less than ten days after the date of service of the document.” INGAA notes that removal of this provision could permit the Secretary to shorten any answer period, including the time for responding to a complaint, to any time period. INGAA describes this as a wholesale change, which it states the Commission has failed to justify.90INGAA asks the Commission to maintain the minimum ten-day answer period for complaints, petitions, motions and other documents that do not request an extension of time.

90INGAA at 3.

2. Commission Response

85. The Commission will adopt the revised regulation to provide for shortened answer periods to the motions for extensions of time or requesting expedited action and to clarify the Secretary's authority to act on such motions. We find that the five day answer period strikes an appropriate balance for the need to expedite action on such requests while preserving interested parties ability to respond to such requests. Since motions regarding time periods are not controversial or complex, five days provides a reasonable time for answers.91The five-day notice period also will help reduce the burden and delay caused by the Secretary of the Commission (under delegated authority) having to issue notices shortening answer periods.

91In most cases, such filings are not opposed.

86. ITC requests that the Commission affirm that parties may request a shortened answer period. While such a filing is permitted, the purpose of the revised regulation is to eliminate the need to issue notices shortening answer periods. Also, given the time it takes to issue such a notice, it will be difficult, in any but extreme cases, for the Secretary to issue a notice shortening an answer period in time to provide parties the ability to respond. Participants contemplating making filings to change time periods should be able to anticipate the need for such a filing five days in advance.

87. As for INGAA's concern with the Commission's revision of the Secretary's delegated authority, we affirm our decision. As noted in the NOPR, the change to the Secretary's delegated authority will clarify that the Secretary has authority to respond to motions in a shortened time frame when necessary to respond to a request for extension of time or expedited action period. While INGAA is correct that the change would also permit the Secretary to shorten the time for filing answers in other contexts, we anticipate that the Secretary would shorten the time for action only when justified and will do so in such a way as not to prejudice any party.

IV. Information Collection Statement

88. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.92This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus not required. The Commission anticipates this rulemaking will reduce the burden of making filings because it will allow filers who previously filed on paper to take advantage of the efficiencies and ease associated with electronic submission in the standardized procedures. In addition, this Final Rule does not make any substantive or material changes to requirements specified in the NOPR, where the Commission similarly found no information collection requirements.

925 CFR 1320.12.

89. EEI suggests that the requirement to submit a protective agreement along with the filing of privileged materials embodies a new burden in the Commission's Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.93The Commission disagrees. The Commission is not requiring any party to file and rely on privileged material in proceedings before the Commission. Furthermore, the requirement to use a protective agreement to facilitate meaningful review of the material by interested parties has long been a part of our regulations pertaining to the filing of complaints and answers. Additionally, those regulations have served as a model in practice for parties filing privileged materials in other proceedings. Thus, the requirement to provide and to use a protective agreement represents a codification of the Commission's existing practice under which a party seeking to rely on privileged materials must provide interested persons the opportunity for meaningful review of privileged materials in Commission proceedings, which typically occurs through the use of a protective agreement. Therefore, we find that codifying the requirement to deliver a protective agreement does not represent a new burden, but simply reflects the Commission's existing practice of applying the procedures developed in the complaint regulations on a case-by-case basis for all filings in which a right of intervention exists. Furthermore, by facilitating filing and service of the protective agreement by electronic means, the revised regulations minimize any impact and reduce the burden of using privileged materials in Commission proceedings.

90. The Commission will submit a copy of this Final Rule to OMB only for informational purposes.

V. Environmental Analysis

91. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.94This rule would not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions.95This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.

92. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)96generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a rulemaking while minimizing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.97The SBA has established a size standard for electrical utilities, stating that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million MWh.98

965 U.S.C. 601-612.

9713 CFR 121.101 (2011).

9813 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 Utilities & n.1.

93. The Commission finds this rule concerns procedural matters and expects it to increase the ease and convenience of filing.99The Commission certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon participants in Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is not required.

99SeeOrder No. 703, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,259 at P 39. The Commission does not believe that an RFA analysis similar to that provided in Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 at P 113, is required or would be useful, because persons making filings with the Commission would not need new software, systems or training, and would not be required to convert existing materials to the new format, as was the case in that proceeding.

VII. Document Availability

94. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in theFederal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

95. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

96. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email atferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room atpublic.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 4, 5, 16, 33, 34, 35, 157, 348, 375, 385, and 388, Chapter I, Title 18, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 4—LICENSES, PERMITS, EXEMPTIONS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF PROJECT COSTS1. The authority citation for Part 4 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

§ 4.39[Amended]2. In paragraph (e) of § 4.39, remove the phrase “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information in §§ 388.112 and 388.113 of subchapter X of this chapter” and add the phrase “privileged materials and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information in §§ 388.112 and 388.113 of this chapter” in its place.PART 5—INTEGRATED LICENSE APPLICATION PROCESS3. The authority citation for Part 5 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(c)Requests for privileged or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information treatment of pre-filing submission.If a potential Applicant requests privileged or critical energy infrastructure information treatment of any information submitted to the Commission during pre-filing consultation (except for the information specified in § 5.4), the Commission will treat the request in accordance with the provisions in § 388.112 of this chapter until the date the application is filed with the Commission.

PART 16—PROCEDURES RELATING TO TAKEOVER AND RELICENSING OF LICENSED PROJECTS5. The authority citation for Part 16 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

§ 16.8[Amended]6. In the heading of § 16.8(g), add the phrase “or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information” after the word “privileged”.PART 33—APPLICATIONS UNDER FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 2037. The authority citation for Part 33 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

The applicant must submit the application or petition to the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with filing procedures posted on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov.

(a) If the applicant seeks to protect any portion of the application, or any attachment thereto, from public disclosure, the applicant must make its filing in accordance with the Commission's instructions for submission of privileged materials and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information in § 388.112 of this chapter.

(b) If required, the applicant must submit information specified in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of § 33.3 or paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of § 33.4 on electronic recorded media (i.e., CD/DVD) in accordance with § 385.2011 of this chapter, along with a printed description and summary. The printed portion of the applicant's submission must include documentation for the electronic information, including all file names and a summary of the data contained in each file. Each column (or data item) in each separate data table or chart must be clearly labeled in accordance with the requirements of §§ 33.3 and 33.4. Any units of measurement associated with numeric entries must also be included.

§ 33.9[Removed and Reserved].9. Remove and reserve § 33.9.PART 34—APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES OR THE ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES10. The authority citation for Part 34 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

11. In § 34.7, add a sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:§ 34.7Filing requirements.

* * * If an applicant seeks to protect any portion of an application from public disclosure, the applicant must make its filing in accordance with the Commission's instructions for filing privileged materials and critical energy infrastructure information in this chapter.

PART 35—FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS12. The authority citation for Part 35 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(f) If the Seller seeks to protect any portion of a filing from public disclosure, the Seller must make its filing in accordance with the Commission's instructions for filing privileged materials and critical energy infrastructure information in § 388.112 of this chapter.

PART 157—APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT14. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as follows:Authority:

15 U.S.C. 717-717z.

§ 157.21[Amended]15. In § 157.21(h), remove the phrase “for the submission of documents containing critical energy infrastructure information, as defined in § 388.113.” and add the phrase “of this chapter for the submission of documents containing privileged materials or critical energy infrastructure information.” in its place.§ 157.34[Amended]16. In § 157.34(d)(4), remove the phrase “under confidential treatment pursuant to § 388.112 of this chapter if desired.” and add the phrase “seeking privileged treatment pursuant to § 388.112 of this chapter.” in its place.PART 348—OIL PIPELINE APPLICATIONS FOR MARKET POWER DETERMINATIONS17. The authority citation for Part 348 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(a) All filings under this part must be made electronically pursuant to the requirements of §§ 341.1 and 341.2 of this chapter. A carrier seeking privileged treatment for all or any part of its filing must submit a request for privileged treatment in accordance with § 388.112 of this chapter.

PART 375—THE COMMISSION19. The authority citation for Part 375 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(b) Prescribe, for good cause, a different time than that required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure or Commission order for filing by public utilities, licensees, natural gas companies, and other persons of answers to complaints, petitions, motions, and other documents.

PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE21. The authority citation for Part 385 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(5) When submitting with its answer any request for privileged treatment of documents and information in accordance with this chapter, a respondent must provide a public version of its answer without the information for which privileged treatment is claimed and its proposed form of protective agreement to each entity that has either been served pursuant to § 385.206(c) or whose name is on the official service list for the proceeding compiled by the Secretary.

(d)Time limitations.(1) Any answer to a motion or to an amendment to a motion must be made within 15 days after the motion or amendment is filed, except as described below or unless otherwise ordered.

(i) If a motion requests an extension of time or a shortened time period for action, then answers to the motion to extend or shorten the time period shall be made within 5 days after the motion is filed, unless otherwise ordered.

(ii) [Reserved]

§ 385.606[Amended]24. In § 385.606:a. In paragraph (f), remove the sentence “See sections 385.410 and 388.112 of this chapter.”b. In paragraph (j), remove the phrase “section 388.112 of.”PART 388—INFORMATION AND REQUESTS25. The authority citation for part 388 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a)Scope.(1) By following the procedures specified in this section, any person submitting a document to the Commission may request privileged treatment for some or all of the information contained in a particular document that it claims is exempt from the mandatory public disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), and should be withheld from public disclosure. For the purposes of the Commission's filing requirements, information subject to an outstanding claim of exemption from disclosure under FOIA, including critical energy infrastructure information (CEII), will be referred to as privileged material.

(2) Any person submitting documents containing CEII as defined in § 388.113, or seeking access to such information should follow the procedures in this chapter.

(b)Procedures for filing and obtaining privileged or CEII material.(1) General Procedures. A person requesting that material be treated as privileged information or CEII must include in its filing a justification for such treatment in accordance with the filing procedures posted on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov. A person requesting that a document filed with the Commission be treated as privileged or CEII must designate the document as privileged or CEII in making an electronic filing or clearly indicate a request for such treatment on a paper filing. The cover page and pages or portions of the document containing material for which privileged treatment is claimed should be clearly labeled in bold, capital lettering, indicating that it contains privileged, confidential and/or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, as appropriate, and marked “DO NOT RELEASE.” The filer also must submit to the Commission a public version with the information that is claimed to be privileged material redacted, to the extent practicable.

(2) Procedures for Proceedings with a Right to Intervene. The following procedures set forth the methods for filing and obtaining access to material that is filed as privileged in complaint proceedings and in any proceeding to which a right to intervention exists:

(i) If a person files material as privileged material or CEII in a complaint proceeding or other proceeding to which a right to intervention exists, that person must include a proposed form of protective agreement with the filing, or identify a protective agreement that has already been filed in the proceeding that applies to the filed material. This requirement does not apply to material submitted in hearing or settlement proceedings, or if the only material for which privileged treatment is claimed consists of landowner lists or privileged information filed under §§ 380.12(f), (m), (o) and 380.16(f) of this chapter.

(ii) The filer must provide the public version of the document and its proposed form of protective agreement to each entity that is required to be served with the filing.

(iii) Any person who is a participant in the proceeding or has filed a motion to intervene or notice of intervention in the proceeding may make a written request to the filer for a copy of the complete, non-public version of the document. The request must include an executed copy of the protective agreement and a statement of the person's right to party or participant status or a copy of their motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person may file an objection to the proposed form of protective agreement. A filer, or any other person, may file an objection to disclosure, generally or to a particular person or persons who have sought intervention.

(iv) If no objection to disclosure is filed, the filer must provide a copy of the complete, non-public document to the requesting person within 5 days after receipt of the written request that is accompanied by an executed copy of the protective agreement. If an objection to disclosure is filed, the filer shall not provide the non-public document to the person or class of persons identified in the objection until ordered by the Commission or a decisional authority.

(v) For material filed in proceedings set for trial-type hearing or settlement judge proceedings, a participant's access to material for which privileged treatment is claimed is governed by the presiding official's protective order.

(vi) For landowner lists, information filed as privileged under §§ 380.12(f), (m), (o) and 380.16(f), forms filed with the Commission, and other documents not covered above, access to this material can be sought pursuant to a FOIA request under § 388.108 or a CEII request under § 388.113 of this chapter. Applicants are not required under paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section to provide intervenors with landowner lists and the other materials identified in the previous sentence.

(c)Effect of privilege or CEII claim.(1) For documents filed with the Commission:

(i) The documents for which privileged or CEII treatment is claimed will be maintained in the Commission's document repositories as non-public until such time as the Commission may determine that the document is not entitled to the treatment sought and is subject to disclosure consistent with§§ 388.108 or 388.113 of this chapter. By treating the documents as nonpublic, the Commission is not making a determination on any claim of privilege or CEII status. The Commission retains the right to make determinations with regard to any claim of privilege or CEII status, and the discretion to release information as necessary to carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities.

(ii) The request for privileged or CEII treatment and the public version of the document will be made available while the request is pending.

(2) For documents submitted to Commission staff. The notification procedures of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section will be followed before making a document public.

(d)Notification of request and opportunity to comment.When a FOIA or CEII requester seeks a document for which privilege or CEII status has been claimed, or when the Commission itself is considering release of such information, the Commission official who will decide whether to release the information or any other appropriate Commission official will notify the person who submitted the document and give the person an opportunity (at least five calendar days) in which to comment in writing on the request. A copy of this notice will be sent to the requester.

(e)Notification before release.Notice of a decision by the Commission, the Chairman of the Commission, the Director, Office of External Affairs, the General Counsel or General Counsel's designee, a presiding officer in a proceeding under part 385 of this chapter, or any other appropriate official to deny a claim of privilege, in whole or in part, or to make a limited release of CEII, will be given to any person claiming that the information is privileged or CEII no less than 5 calendar days before disclosure. The notice will briefly explain why the person's objections to disclosure are not sustained by the Commission. A copy of this notice will be sent to the FOIA or CEII requester.

(f) Notification of suit in Federal courts. When a FOIA requester brings suit to compel disclosure of information for which a person has claimed privileged treatment, the Commission will notify the person who submitted the documents of the suit.

In accordance with Executive Order 13563, the Bureau of Consular Affairs is repealing the regulations on marriages. The current regulations are outdated and duplicative of other authorities that detail procedures for authentications and documentation of life events. Further, in light of other authorities, it is unnecessary to specifically state in the regulations how consular authority is limited.

This rule removes Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to the consular role in marriages. The Department is removing Part 52 because it is outdated and duplicative of other federal laws and regulations. For example:

—Section 52.1 provides that consular officers may not conduct marriages or serve as witnesses to a marriage. The law authorizing consular officers to act in this capacity, 22 U.S.C. 4192, was repealed in 1990.—Section 52.2 relates to authentication of marriage documents. This section is unnecessary because the laws and regulations that apply to authentications in general also apply to marriage documents, and these functions are already covered in 22 CFR 92.41.—Finally, Section 52.3 is unnecessary because there is no longer demand for official certificates with respect to marriage laws in foreign countries.Regulatory Analysis and NoticesAdministrative Procedure Act

This action is being taken as a final rule pursuant to the “good cause” provision of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). It is the position of the Department that notice and comment are not necessary in light of the fact that Part 52 is obsolete or duplicative of other authorities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that the repeal of these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), because the issues addressed are not of an economic nature. In addition, the repeal of this regulation does not have federalism implications under E.O. 13132.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

Federalism

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.

Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Consultations With Tribal Governments

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not pre-empt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 at various times on November 14, 2012. This action is necessary to protect the waterways, waterway users, and vessels from hazards associated with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources netting and electro-fishing clearing operation.

During any of the below listed enforcement periods, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2012.

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Enforcement will occur from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2012.

This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that the Illinois Department of Natural Resources netting and electro-fishing clearing operation poses risks to life and property. The passage of vessel traffic during the same time as the Operation makes the controlling of vessels through the impacted portion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal necessary to prevent injury and property loss.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will also provide notice through other means, which may include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice.

Additionally, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

EPA is taking final action to approve most elements, and disapprove narrow portions of other elements, of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particle national ambient air quality standards (2006 PM2.5NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also taking final action to approve portions of a submission from Indiana addressing EPA's requirements for its new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. The proposed rulemaking was published on August 2, 2012. During the comment period, which ended on September 4, 2012, EPA received five comment letters. The concerns raised in these letters, as well as EPA's responses, will be addressed in this final action.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805 (infrastructure SIP elements for all Region 5 States) and EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567 (Indiana NSR/PSD elements). All documents in the docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically inwww.regulations.govor in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?A. What State SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?B. Why did the States make these SIP submissions?C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking?III. What action is EPA taking?IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. What is the background of these SIP submissions?A. What State SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

This rulemaking addresses submissions from each State (and appropriate State agency) in EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM); Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Air Management (WDNR). Each Region 5 State made SIP submissions on the following dates: Illinois—August 9, 2011, and supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012; Indiana—October 20, 2009, and supplemented on June 25, 2012, and July 12, 2012; Michigan—August 15, 2011, and supplemented on July 9, 2012; Minnesota—May 23, 2011, and supplemented on June 27, 2012; Ohio—September 4, 2009, and supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2012; and, Wisconsin—January 24, 2011, and supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012.1

1WDNR noted in a comment letter that its initial infrastructure SIP submission was dated December 12, 2007. EPA observes, however, that the December 12, 2007, submission by WDNR only addresses the 1997 8-hour ground level ozone and 1997 PM2.5NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.

Indiana also made a SIP submission intended to address various EPA requirements for its NSR and PSD programs. IDEM submitted revisions on July 12, 2012, for incorporation into its NSR and PSD program, and also requested that EPA approve these revisions as satisfying any applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.

B. Why did the States make these SIP submissions?

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and implementing EPA policy, the States are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for particulate matter already met those requirements.

EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2009 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. The SIP submissions from the six Region 5 States being evaluated here address primarily the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS, with a narrow evaluation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; this final rulemaking addresses only these pollutants as well.2

2On June 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator signed a proposed rule that would strengthen various aspects of the existing PM2.5NAAQS (see77 FR 38890). The State submittals and EPA's rulemaking do not extend to these proposed NAAQS.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

As originally detailed in the proposed rulemaking, the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. EPA is finalizing action of each Region 5 State's satisfaction of the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through section 110(a)(2)(M), except for the elements detailed in the following paragraphs.

This rulemaking will not cover four substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a State's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); (iii) existing provisions for minor source NSR programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (“minor source NSR”); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four substantive areas are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards” in the section entitled, “What is the scope of this final rulemaking?” (see76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).

In addition to the four substantive areas above, EPA is not acting in this action on portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate transport; section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—Adequate resources; and section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with government officials,public notifications, PSD, and visibility protection. EPA stated in our proposed rulemaking that we were not proposing to act on the portion of any Region 5 State's submission intended to address the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see77 FR 45992 at 46000), nor were we proposing to approve or disapprove each Region 5 State's satisfaction of the state board requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (see77 FR 45992 at 46002). We have previously finalized our rulemaking for the interstate transport requirements for Indiana and Ohio (seeFR 43175), and we have yet to take action on the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submissions from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. We will also take action on compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin at a later time. EPA is working with each of the Region 5 States to address these requirements in the most appropriate way.

With respect to the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA notes that these requirements are different from those in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in that the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not “triggered” by the promulgation of a new or updated NAAQS. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA realizes that our proposed rulemaking may have engendered confusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) (see77 FR 45992 at 46005), and we want to clarify in this final action that the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA is also not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.

Furthermore, as a result of the current status of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),3EPA is not finalizing action on portions of the interstate transport requirements for addressing visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for certain Region 5 States where we had previously proposed approval; the reasoning can be found in the following section.

3See http://epa.gov/airtransport/.Notably, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion vacating CSAPR on August 21, 2012, and ordering EPA to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

We are also not finalizing our action on narrow portions of Michigan's infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically with respect to the applicable requirements obligated by EPA's final rule for the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR Rule) (see73 FR 28321) and the “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) (see70 FR 71612). On September 4, 2012, MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA that requires more evaluation; the specific issues are described in the following section.

Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the comment period, EPA is not finalizing action on a narrow portion of Indiana's infrastructure SIP for section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J), specifically for the source impact analysis requirements of the State's PSD program as it relates to the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS; the specific issues are described in the following section.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking?

The public comment period for EPA's proposed action to approve most elements and disapprove narrow portions of other elements of submissions from the Region 5 States closed on September 4, 2012. EPA received five comment letters, and a synopsis of the significant individual comments contained in these letters, as well as EPA's response to each comment, is discussed below.

Comment 1:A comment letter was submitted on behalf of the Ohio Utility Group (OUG) and its member companies. While OUG generally supported EPA's proposed actions with respect to Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS, the group recommended that EPA withdraw its prior disapproval of the portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP addressing the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see76 FR 43175). Instead, OUG stated that it was EPA's intent to implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in Ohio to meet these requirements, and that the finalized CSAPR was published in theFederal Registeron August 8, 2011 (see76 FR 48208), as a FIP that would simultaneously remedy and replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). OUG noted that CSAPR was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending judicial review on December 31, 2011, and that the court also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. OUG further noted that on August 21, 2012, the court vacated and remanded CSAPR back to EPA, and again ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. Therefore, OUG believes that EPA should withdraw its prior disapproval of Ohio's interstate transport SIP, and propose approval of Ohio's submissions intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), making the emission reductions that have already occurred Federally enforceable. Lastly, OUG stated that when EPA issues a new interstate transport rule, EPA can then make a determination that the emission reductions as a result of Ohio's interstate transport SIP are insufficient and require Ohio to develop an updated SIP.

Response 1:In EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking, we stated that we were not proposing to approve or disapprove any provisions intended to address interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (see76 FR 45992 at 46000); with respect to Ohio, EPA noted that the disapproval of portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS intended to address these requirements was finalized on July 20, 2011, and that the State did not have any SIP submission relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS pending before the Agency. In other words, OUG's comments are not germane to today's rulemaking.

Comment 2:One commenter noted that although EPA had proposed approval for all Region 5 States (except for Michigan) as meeting the visibility protection requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the Region 5 States' visibility SIPs relied on CSAPR to satisfy the requirement of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for electric generating units. Since CSAPR has been vacated with CAIR temporarily in place, the commenter asserts that there exists no current and permanent cross state air pollution rule for EPA and the Region 5 States to rely on to satisfy the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which includes BART limits for electric generating units. Therefore, EPA must disapprove the portions of infrastructure SIPs intended to address the visibilityprotection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

Response 2:The 2009 Memo recommends to states that the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional haze.4The commenter is correct in stating that if Region 5 States' regional haze plans relied on CSAPR in the context of BART and electric generating units, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) would not be met because CSAPR has been vacated. However, the commenter is incorrect in his characterization of Illinois' regional haze plan. Specifically, Illinois has two sets of provisions in its SIP rules that meet the BART requirement of electric generating units5without relying on CSAPR (or CAIR). EPA's final approval of Illinois' regional haze plan was published on July 6, 2012, (see76 FR 39943) and affirms that existing provisions in Illinois satisfy the BART requirement.

4EPA notes that the 2009 Memo distinguishes section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) from the visibility element of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA believes is not germane in infrastructure SIPs for this NAAQS.

In today's rulemaking, EPA is not finalizing our proposed approval of the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. EPA is also not taking any action on the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Michigan. EPA will take action on these States' SIPs in a separate rulemaking. However, EPA is finalizing approval of Illinois' satisfaction of the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in this rulemaking.

Comment 3:The same commenter stated that the Indiana SIP is insufficient for purposes of the State's PSD program for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. The commenter observes that 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-5(a)(1) requires an analysis of a new or modified source's emissions demonstrating that the emissions will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of any ambient air quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3. The language contained in 326 IAC 1-3 explicitly references only the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Therefore, a literal read of Indiana's PSD regulations indicates that a source impact analysis would only need to comply with the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS. The commenter did note that 326 IAC 2-1.1-5 contains language that would prohibit issuance of a registration, permit, modification approval, or operating permit revision if issuance would allow a source to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-1.1-5 is currently not in the SIP, and the language contained therein has not been submitted by Indiana for incorporation into the SIP.

Response 3:After evaluating the commenter's points, EPA agrees that the State's EPA-approved PSD SIP contained in 326 IAC 2-2-5(a) only requires a source impact analysis for PM2.5to comply with the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS, and not the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. 326 IAC 2-2-5(a) states that “The owner or operator of the proposed major stationary source or major modification shall demonstrate that allowable emissions increases in conjunction with all other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including secondary emissions) will not cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of any: (1) Ambient air quality standard, as designated in 326 IAC 1-3, in any air quality control region * * *” 326 IAC 1-3-4 contains the ambient air quality standards as they apply in Indiana; the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS as codified in 40 CFR 50.13, has not been incorporated into this section. IDEM has informed EPA that the State is in the process of adopting revisions to its SIP, specifically contained in IAC 326 1-3-4, to incorporate the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS as codified in 40 CFR 50.13. EPA is therefore not finalizing any action on this narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) for Indiana's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS; we will address the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. EPA notes that there are also PSD requirements associated with section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J). As a result, we are also not finalizing any action on this narrow portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section 110(a)(2)(J) for Indiana's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS; we will address the same PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS in the same action for section 110(a)(2)(C).

Comment 4:The same commenter as above also stated that Wisconsin's PSD SIP does not contain the maximum allowable increases in ambient pollutant concentrations (increments) for PM2.5. The final rule for the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” requiring states to incorporate increments into their PSD SIPs was published in theFederal Registeron October 20, 2010 (2010 NSR Rule) (see75 FR 64864). This requirement was also codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c). The 2010 NSR Rule required states to submit revisions to their SIPs addressing this required program element by July 20, 2012 (see75 FR 64864 at 64898). Therefore, because Wisconsin had not made revisions to its PSD SIP incorporating the increments by the deadline prescribed by the 2010 NSR Rule, EPA must disapprove the appropriate portions of the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. The commenter did state that WDNR has applied the appropriate increments when issuing PSD permits.

Response 4:The commenter asserts that EPA should now disapprove portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS because, since the date of EPA's proposal, the deadline for the submission of a SIP revision addressing the PM2.5increments has passed. However, pursuant to the 2010 NSR Rule and CAA section 166(b), states were not required to submit a revised SIP addressing the PM2.5increments until July 20, 2012. The Agency proposed action on the Wisconsin infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS in a notice signed on July 20, 2012.6Therefore, on the date that the proposed rule was signed by the Agency, the PM2.5increments were not required to be included in the Wisconsin SIP in order for Wisconsin to meet the PSD requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA.

6Although the proposed action was published by theFederal Registeron August 2, 2012, it was signed by the Regional Administrator on July 20, 2012, before the statutory deadline for submission of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5increments had passed.

The commenter's concerns relate to the timing of Agency action on collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. These concerns highlight an important overarching question that the EPA has to confront when assessing the various infrastructure SIP submittals addressed in the proposed rule: How to proceed when the timing and sequencing of multiple related SIP submissions impact the ability of the State and the Agency to address certain substantive issues inthe infrastructure SIP submission in a reasonable fashion.

It is appropriate for EPA to take into consideration the timing and sequence of related SIP submissions as part of determining what it is reasonable to expect a State to have addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission for a NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts on such submission. EPA has historically interpreted section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to assess a State's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to the then-applicable and Federally enforceable PSD regulations required to be included in a State's SIP at the time EPA takes action on the SIP.

However, EPA does not consider it reasonable to interpret section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require us to propose to disapprove a State's infrastructure SIP submissions because the State had not yet, at the time of proposal, made a submission that was not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5NSR Rule. To adopt a different approach by which EPA could not act on an infrastructure SIP, or at least could not approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever there was any impending revision to the SIP required by another collateral rulemaking action would result in regulatory gridlock and make it impracticable or impossible for EPA to act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in the process of revising collateral PSD regulations. EPA believes that such an outcome would be an unreasonable reading of the statutory process for the infrastructure SIPs contemplated in section 110(a)(1) and (2).

EPA acknowledges that it is important that these additional PSD program revisions be evaluated and approved into the State's SIP in accordance with the CAA, and EPA intends to address the PM2.5increments in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA appreciates the commenter's point that Wisconsin has been applying the appropriate increments consistent with the requirements codified in 40 CFR 52.21(c), and we will actively work with the State to ensure that these increments are correctly evaluated in permitting decisions. Furthermore, we will work with Wisconsin to ensure that revisions to its SIP incorporating these increments will be wholly consistent with the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).

Comment 5:The same commenter as above agreed with EPA's proposed disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and regulation of condensable PM2.5and PM10in its PSD program.7Wisconsin's existing SIP contained in Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 400.02(123e)—NR 400.02(124) does not contain the explicit references to condensables in PM2.5and PM10emissions, as obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. Furthermore, revisions to its PSD program submitted by WDNR on May 11, 2011, do not contain the explicit identification or regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables. However, the commenter notes that WDNR has been including condensable fraction of particulate matter in permits for facilities for many years, as alluded to in NR 415.09. The commenter suggests that EPA clarify that a final disapproval of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables does “not negate or otherwise undermine the fact that all limits in all existing permits in Wisconsin already include condensable PM.”

7“Condensables” are defined as gases that at ambient temperatures, could condense to form particulate matter.

Response 5:EPA appreciates the commenter's point that WDNR has historically considered some condensable PM in its permits. The SIP-approved portions of NR 415.09 include references to condensable particulate matter, as defined in NR 439.02(4). NR 439 contains the requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and determination of compliance for air contaminant sources and their owners and operators. Specifically, NR 439.02(4) defines “condensible[sic] particulate matter” as “any material, except uncombined water, that may not be collected in the front half of the particulate emission sampling train but which exists as a solid or liquid at standard conditions.” EPA agrees that WDNR has the authority to regulate some condensables, and also agrees with the commenter that a final disapproval of portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification and regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables does not negate that WDNR has considered some condensable particulate matter in its permits. However, at this point in time, the State has not revised its SIP to contain the required explicit references to condensables that are necessary for purposes of the PSD program, and to make that requirement a Federally enforceable part of the State's SIP. EPA will continue to work with the State to develop SIP revisions that account for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, we expect the State to correctly account for these condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits.

Comment 6:MDEQ submitted a comment letter to EPA affirming that the State is adopting revisions to its rules that would be wholly consistent with the required infrastructure SIP requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. MDEQ stated that the necessary revisions would be submitted to EPA imminently for incorporation into the SIP, specifically before the end of 2012, and also included the draft rules reflecting the appropriate revisions. The State urged EPA to issue a conditional approval for the relevant portions of its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS in lieu of finalizing a narrow disapproval.

Response 6:EPA appreciates MDEQ's efforts in adopting revisions to its SIP to be wholly consistent with the required infrastructure SIP requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. In our proposed rulemaking addressing the relevant requirements, EPA noted that the State is in the process of adopting required revisions to its regulations to: Address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation of PM2.5, i.e., precursors;8account for condensables in PM2.5and PM10applicability determinations and emission limits in NSR permits; and, explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone (seeFR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA believes that MDEQ's specific commitments, including the revisions in progress specific to the applicable requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, as well as the time frame noted, i.e., prior to the end of 2012, require more evaluation. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA is not finalizing our proposed disapproval of portions of Michigan's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the PSD requirements contained in section110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) to: Identify the precursors to PM2.5consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; account for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and emissions limits for permits consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule; and, identify NOXas a precursor to ozone consistent with the Phase 2 Rule. EPA will address Michigan's satisfaction of these requirements in a separate rulemaking. In the interim, however, EPA expects Michigan to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of PM2.5precursors and the accounting for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. We also expect Michigan to treat and explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.

8In the 2008 NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX(unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOXemissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5concentrations.

Comment 7:Ohio EPA submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing with our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS intended to address the relevant requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule. Ohio EPA observes that EPA proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP intended to meet the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5precursors; identifying PM2.5and PM10condensables in the PSD program; and, identifying NOXas a precursor to ozone. Ohio notes that our proposed rulemaking states that “the infrastructure SIP requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA.” Ohio also notes that under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to “include a program” for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required under parts C and D. Citing Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03, the State argues that the director of Ohio EPA has the authority to implement Ohio's NSR program contained in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-31. Specifically, OAC 3745-31-01 defines “regulated NSR pollutant” as including any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for such pollutants identified by the administrator. Therefore, under this authority, Ohio EPA has been applying its PSD program in accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule, and as a result—Ohio EPA meets the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) to “include a program” that meets parts C and D. Ohio EPA asserts that EPA must approve these elements of Ohio's SIP because the State has met the infrastructure SIP requirements for including a program that assures the PM2.5NAAQS is addressed in Ohio's permit program, even absent Ohio submitting revisions to its PSD regulations as mandated by the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule.

Response 8:While it is true that Ohio EPA has included a program under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and that EPA has approved various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,9EPA explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in order to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements to specifically identify PM2.5precursors, to properly account for PM2.5and PM10condensables, and to treat NOXas a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts. EPA recognizes that Ohio currently has some authority to treat SO2and NOXas presumed precursors to PM2.5, and in a similar manner, to treat NOXas a precursor to ozone in permitting decisions. Our proposed rulemaking also recognized that Ohio EPA is in the process of adopting revisions to its PSD program to be wholly consistent with the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule (seeFR 77 45995 at 45996-45998). EPA's regulations as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5precursors, and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi) for PM2.5and PM10condensables, required states to make specific revisions by May 16, 2011 (see73 FR 28321 at 28341). Because Ohio has not yet made these required revisions, however, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of these narrow portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. Likewise, the changes obligated by the Phase 2 Rule to explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone and codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), 40 CFR 51.166(49)(i), and footnote 1 to 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) required states to submit specific revisions to EPA by June 15, 2007 (see70 FR 71612 at 71683). Because Ohio has not yet made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this narrow portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.10EPA will work actively with the State to ensure that the necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously as possible. In the interim, we expect the State to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of PM2.5precursors and the accounting for PM2.5and PM10condensables applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. We also expect Ohio to treat and explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.

9See,e.g.,http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.

10EPA has also taken other actions germane to the explicit identification of NOXas a precursor to ozone in Federally approved PSD programs, e.g., “Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS” (see73 FR 16205), and “Partial Disapproval of “Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan” for Wisconsin (77 FR 35870).

Comment 9:WDNR submitted a comment letter to EPA disagreeing with our proposed disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS intended to address the relevant requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. WDNR states that EPA proposed a narrow disapproval of portions of its infrastructure SIP intended to meet the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C): Identifying PM2.5precursors; and, identifying PM2.5and PM10condensables in the PSD program.

Wisconsin notes that our proposed rulemaking states that “the infrastructure SIP requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA.” Wisconsin also notes that under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are required to “include a program” for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required under parts C and D of CAA section 110(A)(2). Wisconsin argues that its infrastructure SIP submissions have clearly stated that WDNR has the resources and authorities necessary to implement and satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for PM2.5and PM10.

Citing the definition of “regulated NSR air contaminant” in Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405.02(25i) as including “any contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and anyconstituents or precursors for the air contaminant identified by the administrator,” the State asserts that it has been applying the PSD program in accordance with the explicit identification of precursor(s) to PM2.5and ozone, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule. Furthermore, the State observes that all permits issued by WDNR address these requirements as codified by EPA, or through EPA guidance under the authority provided in Wisconsin State Statute and Wisconsin Administrative Code. WDNR therefore contends that it has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program that meets part C and D.

WDNR also notes that it has been accounting for condensable particulate matter in its PSD permitting program since the beginning of the program; particulate matter and particulate matter emissions have been defined to include condensables since 1989 and have been a part of the approved SIP since 1993. Wisconsin asserts that EPA must approve these elements of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP, because WDNR has met the applicable requirements.

Response 9:While it is true that WDNR has included a program required under parts C and D of the CAA in its SIP, and EPA has approved various aspects of the State's PSD program in the past,11EPA explained in our proposed rulemaking that the 2008 NSR Rule and Phase 2 Rule now obligate states to make explicit regulatory changes in order to clarify and remove any ambiguity concerning the requirements to explicitly identify PM2.5precursors, to properly account for PM2.5and PM10condensables, and to treat NOXas a precursor to ozone in permitting contexts.12Our proposed rulemaking referenced Wisconsin's definition of “regulated NSR air contaminant” as providing generic language to define what constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant; however, the State's current rules do not contain provisions that would directly account for PM2.5and its precursors in NSR permitting. EPA's regulations as codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) for PM2.5precursors, required states to make specific revisions by May 16, 2011. Because Wisconsin has not yet made these required revisions, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of this narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the explicit identification of PM2.5precursors. With respect to accounting for particulate matter condensables in its PSD permitting program, EPA recognizes that Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 439 contains the requirements for reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and determination of compliance for air contaminant sources and their owners and operators. Of note, NR 439.02(4) defines “condensible [sic] particulate matter” as “any material, except uncombined water, that may not be collected in the front half of the particulate emission sampling train but which exists as a solid or liquid at standard conditions.” However, Wisconsin's current SIP does not contain the explicit language to account for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting decisions, as required by 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi), and to date, the State has not made a submission with such revisions. As a result of EPA's own regulations and the May 16, 2011 deadline for submitting revisions consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule, we are finalizing the disapproval of this narrow portion of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the explicit regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables in permits. EPA will work actively with the State to ensure that the necessary SIP revisions are completed as expeditiously as possible. We will work with Wisconsin to rectify these issues promptly, and in the interim, we expect the State to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of PM2.5precursors and the accounting for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program. Although not germane to this action, we also expect Wisconsin to treat and explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.

11See,e.g.,http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/permits/const/frn-nsr.html.

12Note that EPA has already finalized the disapproval of narrow portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5NAAQS with respect to the NOXas a precursor to ozone provisions per the Phase 2 Rule (see77 FR 35870).

III. What action is EPA taking?

For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve most elements and disapprove narrow portions of other elements of submissions from the EPA Region 5 States certifying that the current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA is also taking final action to approve portions of a submission from Indiana intended to meet EPA's requirements for the NSR and PSD programs in that State. Specifically, they are: (i) 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(2); (ii) 326 IAC 2-1.1-1(10); (iii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(dd)(1); (iv) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ff)(7); (v) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ss)(1); (vi) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(F); (vii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ww)(1)(G); and, (viii) 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(vi). As detailed in our proposed rulemaking, these revisions are wholly consistent with the infrastructure SIP requirements associated with the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule.

Due to the current status of CSAPR, EPA is not finalizing our previously proposed approval for the interstate transport requirements addressing visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA is also not taking any action on Michigan's satisfaction of these requirements. As explained in the comments and responses section, EPA is finalizing our previously proposed approval of Illinois' infrastructure SIP for the interstate transport requirements addressing visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

As a result of a comment letter submitted by the State of Michigan, EPA is not finalizing our previously proposed disapproval of narrow portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) for the State. Instead, EPA will address Michigan's satisfaction of the applicable PSD requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the Phase 2 Rule in a separate rulemaking. Lastly, as a result of a comment received during the public comment period, EPA is not finalizing its proposed approval of the submission from Indiana with respect to one narrow issue that relates to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Specifically, EPA will address the PSD source impact analysis requirements for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS in the State of Indiana in a later action.

EPA's final actions for each Region 5 State's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are contained in the table below.

As originallydescribed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is finalizing disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to certain PSD requirements including: (i) The explicit identification of SO2and NOXas PM2.5precursors consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (ii) the regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables consistent with the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule; (iii) the explicit identification of NOXas a precursor to ozone consistent with the Phase 2 Rule; and, (iv) permitting of GHG emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds.

13In addition to the information provided in this table for the State of Indiana, EPA reiterates once again that we are not finalizing any action with respect to the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.

EPA is also finalizing the disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with PSD programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to notify neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source, consistent with the requirements of section 126(a).

However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations as a result of this disapproval because Federally promulgated rules, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in effect in each of these States. EPA has delegated the authority to Illinois and Minnesota to administer these rules, which include provisions related to PSD and interstate pollution abatement. This final disapproval for Illinois and Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP requirements will not result in sanctions under section 179(a), nor will it obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of final action if the States do not submit revisions to their PSD SIPs addressing these deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and Minnesota are already subject to the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, and both States administer these regulations via EPA's delegated authority.

The grounds for EPA's final disapproval of portions of the infrastructure SIP submittals from Ohio and Wisconsin are very narrow, and pertain only to these specific deficiencies in the States' SIPs described in the relevant sections of the proposed rulemaking, as well as in the responses to comments section of today's rulemaking.

As previously discussed, EPA believes that Ohio has been actively preparing necessary revisions to its PSD program, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. We will work with the State to rectify these issues promptly. In addition, EPA will work with WDNR to account for the explicit identification of precursors to PM2.5, as well as PM2.5and PM10condensables, in its PSD program.14

14Although not specific to this action, EPA will also continue to work with WDNR to ensure that revisions to the State's PSD program contain provisions that explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone, consistent with the Phase 2 Rule.

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submission that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (section 171-section 193 of the CAA), or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. The provisions in the submissions we are disapproving were not submitted by Ohio or Wisconsin to meet either of those requirements. Therefore, no sanctions under section 179 will be triggered.

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administratorpromulgates such FIP. As detailed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA anticipates that Ohio EPA will make submissions rectifying each of the deficiencies that are the basis for the disapprovals in this action. Further, EPA anticipates acting on the anticipated submissions from the State within the two year time frame prior to our FIP obligation on these very narrow issues. In the interim, EPA expects Ohio to treat and explicitly identify NOXas a precursor to ozone for PSD permitting consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA also expects the State to adhere to the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule with respect to the treatment and identification of PM2.5precursors and the accounting for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits in its PSD program.

EPA will actively work with Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its PSD program that explicitly identify PM2.5precursors and account for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, EPA expects WDNR to adhere to the associated requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule in its PSD program, specifically with respect to the explicit identification of PM2.5precursors, and the accounting for PM2.5and PM10condensables in applicability determinations and permitting emissions limits.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

(c) Approval and Disapproval—In an August 9, 2011, submittal, and supplemented on August 25, 2011, and June 27, 2012, Illinois certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on (D)(i)(I) and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving portions of Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of significant deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).

3. In § 52.770:a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry in numerical order for “2-1.1-1”, and revising the entries for “2-2-1”, and “2-2-4”.b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries in alphabetical order for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5NAAQS”.

EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory ProvisionsTitleIndiana dateEPA approvalExplanation*******Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5NAAQS10/20/2009, 6/25/2012, 7/12/201210/29/2012, [Insert page number where the document begins]This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not finalizing action on the PSD source impact analysis requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action.*******4. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5NAAQS” to read as follows:§ 52.1170Identification of plan.

EPA approval dateComments*******Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5NAAQSStatewide8/15/2011, 7/9/201210/29/2012, [Insert page number where the document begins]This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We are taking no action on portions of Michigan's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule (identifying PM2.5precursors, and the regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables in permits) and the Phase 2 Rule (identification of NOXas a precursor to ozone) with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).5. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry in alphabetical order for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5NAAQS” to read as follows:§ 52.1220Identification of plan.

EPA approved dateComments*******Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Ozone NAAQSStatewide5/23/2011, 6/27/2012 (submittal dates)10/29/2012, [Insert page number where the document begins]This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not finalizing action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. Although EPA is disapproving portions of Minnesota's submission addressing the prevention of significant deterioration, Minnesota continues to implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).*******6. Section 52.1891 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 52.1891Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

(c) Approval and Disapproval—In a September 4, 2009 submittal, supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2012, Ohio certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II) or the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule (identifying PM2.5precursors, and the regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables in permits) and the Phase 2 Rule (identification of NOXas a precursor to ozone) with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

(e) Approval and Disapproval—In a January 24, 2011, submittal, supplemented on March 28, 2011, and June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on (D)(i)(I), the visibility protection requirements of (D)(i)(II), and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We will address these requirements in a separate action. We are disapproving narrow portions of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the relevant prevention of significant deterioration requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule (identifying PM2.5precursors and the regulation of PM2.5and PM10condensables in permits) with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).

EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan submitted by the State of Maryland as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The Maryland SIP revision demonstrates attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE moderate nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) by the applicable attainment date of June 2011. EPA is approving the SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929. All documents in the docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govWeb site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically throughwww.regulations.govor in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by email atquinto.rose@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50966), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of the attainment demonstration portion of Maryland's attainment plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. The formal SIP revision (#07-05) was submitted by Maryland on June 4, 2007.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

The SIP revision consists of the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan submitted by Maryland as a SIP revision on June 4, 2007 to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area by the applicable attainment date of June 2011. EPA previously approved other portions of the Maryland attainment plan submitted on June 4, 2007.See75 FR 33172 (June 11, 2010). EPA has determined that the weight of evidence analysis that Maryland used to support the attainment demonstration provides sufficient evidence that the Philadelphia Area would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 2011. Specific requirements of the attainment demonstration and the rationale for EPA's proposed action to approve the attainment demonstration are explained in the NPR and in the technical support document (TSD) for the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

Separately, EPA conducted a process to find adequate the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for Cecil County which are associated with the Maryland attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia Area. A notice was posted on EPA's Web site for a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy determination for the 2009 MVEBs associated with the attainment demonstration for Cecil County. No comments were received during the public comment period. Therefore, EPA finds adequate the MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for Cecil County, Maryland.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which was submitted by Maryland on June 4, 2007. EPA has determined that Maryland's SIP revision demonstrates attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area by the applicable attainment date. EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. EPA is also approving and finding adequate the 2009 MVEBs associated with the attainment demonstration for Cecil County, Maryland.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to the Maryland attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

PART 52—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401et seq.

Subpart V—Maryland2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry for the Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and its Associated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets at the end of the table to read as follows:§ 52.1070Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

Name of non-regulatory

SIP revision

Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area

State

submittal

date

EPA approval dateAdditional explanation*******Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard and its Associated Motor Vehicle Emissions BudgetsMaryland-Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Moderate Nonattainment Area06/04/0710/29/12 [Insert page number where the document begins]3. In § 52.1076, paragraph (z) is added to read as follows:§ 52.1076Control strategy plans for attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone.

(z) EPA approves the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area submitted as a revision to the State Implementation Plan by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment on June 4, 2007. EPA also approves the 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets associated with the attainment demonstration for Cecil County, Maryland.

Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Maryland Portion of the Philadelphia AreaType of control strategy SIPYearVOC

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on September 26, 2011. The SIP revision updates the 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) in the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area (Fredericksburg Area) by replacing the previously approved MVEBs with budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator emissions model (MOVES2010a). The revised MVEBs continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

Effective Date:This final rule is effective on November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0444. All documents in the docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govWeb site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically throughwww.regulations.govor in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email atbecoat.gregory@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

On August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46672), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of the Virginia SIP revision that updates the 2009 and 2015 MVEBs in the Fredericksburg Area by replacing the previously approved MVEBs with budgets developed using MOVES2010a. By EPA's finalizing the proposed approval, the newly submitted MOVES2010a MVEBs will replace the existing, MOBILE6.2-based budgets in Virginia's SIP and must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the Fredericksburg Area according to the transportation conformity rule.See40 CFR 93.118. The previously approved budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes. Additionally, with the approval of the MOVES2010a-based MVEBs, the regional transportation conformity grace period for not using MOVES2010a for the pollutants included in these budgets will end for the Fredericksburg Area on the effective date of this final approval. See 75 FR 9411, 9414 (March 2, 2010) forbackground on MOVES2010a and Section II.C for details. EPA received no comments on the NPR to approve Virginia's SIP revision.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On September 26, 2011, the Commonwealth of Virginia through VADEQ submitted a SIP revision with MVEBs based on MOVES2010a for the years 2009 and 2015 to help ensure that the Fredericksburg Area can demonstrate transportation conformity using MOVES2010a MVEBs once the grace period expires as discussed in more detail in the NPR.

States that revise their existing SIPs to include MVEBs based on MOVES2010a must show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. EPA has determined that the Fredericksburg Area maintenance plan continues to serve its intended purpose with the MOVES2010a-based MVEBs and that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria in the conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based MVEBs submitted by Virginia for use in determining transportation conformity in the Fredericksburg Area because the submitted budgets will continue to keep emissions below the attainment level and maintain air quality and continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On the effective date of this rulemaking, the submitted MOVES2010a-based MVEBs will replace the existing, MOBILE6.2-based budgets in the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and will be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the Fredericksburg Area. The previously approved MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes. The following table compares the nitrogen oxide (NOX) MVEBs developed using MOBILE6.2 to the inventories developed using MOVES2010a.

MOVES2010a200419.74224.064200913.06217.61520157.5769.933* Includes conformity buffers.IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts* * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude Virginia from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Virginia's 2009 and 2015 MVEBs in the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Area using MOVES2010a may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

PART 52—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows:Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401et seq.

Subpart VV—Virginia2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg VA Area. The amendments read as follows:§ 52.2420Identification of plan.

(c) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on September 26, 2011:

Applicable geographic areaYearTons per day

(TPD) NOX

Fredericksburg Area (Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and City of Fredericksburg)200917.615Fredericksburg Area (Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and City of Fredericksburg)20159.933[FR Doc. 2012-26403 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-PENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Part 52[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608; FRL-9745-7]Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality StandardsAGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision pertains to amendments of West Virginia's Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8- Ambient Air Quality Standards. The amendments change the effective date of the incorporation by reference of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter and carbon monoxide as well as their monitoring reference and equivalent methods. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This rule is effective on December 28, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 28, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in theFederal Registerand inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608 by one of the following methods:

D.Hand Delivery:At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online atwww.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected throughwww.regulations.govor email. Thewww.regulations.govWeb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going throughwww.regulations.gov,your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:All documents in the electronic docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inwww.regulations.govor in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email atkhadr.asrah@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On June 6, 2012, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a formal revision to its SIP pertaining to amendments of Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8—Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SIP revision consists of a change in the effective date of the incorporation by reference of the NAAQS and their monitoring reference and equivalent methods. EPA had approved a previous revision of Legislative Rule 45 CSR 8 on September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56125).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

This SIP revision is part of an annual submission by WVDEP to update their incorporation by reference of the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards which are found at 40 CFR Part 50. The SIP revision also updates the incorporation by reference of the Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods which are found at 40 CFR Part 53. The amendments to the legislative rule include changes to section 45-8-1 (General) in which the filing and effective dates are changed to reflect the update of the legislative rule. They also include changes to section 45-8-3 (Adoption of Standards) in which the effective dates for the incorporation by reference of the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards and the Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods are also changed to reflect the update of the legislative rule. The filing and effective dates of the legislative rule were updated and changed to May 1, 2012 and June 1, 2012 respectively. The effective date of the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR Part 50 and 40 CFR Part 53 changed from June 16, 2011 to June 1, 2012.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the amendments to Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8—Ambient Air Quality Standards, into the West Virginia SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today'sFederal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on December 28, 2012 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 28, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA willpublish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerinforming the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today'sFederal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking.

This action pertaining to the amendments of Legislative Rule 45 CSR 8 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the final rule that appeared in the August 31, 2012Federal Registerentitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Fiscal Year 2013 Rates; Hospitals' Resident Caps for Graduate Medical Education Payment Purposes; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers and for Ambulatory Surgical Centers.”

DATES:

Effective Date:October 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tzvi Hefter, (410) 786-4487.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

In FR Doc. 2012-19079 of August 31, 2012 (77 FR 53258) (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule), there were technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document. We note that in the October 3, 2012Federal Register(77 FR 60315), we corrected a number of the errors in the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule including an error in the table regarding the final performance standards for the FY 2015 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program. (For more detailed information, see sections II.A. and IV.A.11. of the October 3, 2012 correcting document).

II. Summary of ErrorsA. Errors in the Preamble

On pages 53601 and 53602, we have determined that there were also errors in the achievement thresholds and benchmark values presented in the Clinical Process of Care measures section of the final performance standards for the FY 2015 HVBP Program table. The omission of the label for the HF-1 measure resulted in the performance standards for all subsequent measures being shifted up one line each. The table now reflects the corrections for all finalized Clinical Process of Care measures.

B. Errors in the Addendum

On page 53695, we made typographical errors in the charge inflation factor for the FY 2013 IPPS outlier threshold.

III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay of Effective Date

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in theFederal Registerto provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the. This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographical errors in the preamble and addendum, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies thatwere adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the preamble and addendum, accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering the policies that were already subject to comment and finalized in our final rule. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

IV. Correction of Errors

In FR Doc. 2012-19079 of August 31, 2012 (77 FR 53258), make the following corrections:

A. Corrections of Errors in the Preamble

1. On pages 53601 and 53602, the table entitled “FINAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE FY 2015 HOSPITAL VBP PROGRAM CLINICAL PROCESS OF CARE, OUTCOME, AND EFFICIENCY DOMAINS,” the entries for the clinical process of care measures are corrected as follows:

Clinical Process of Care MeasuresMeasure IDDescriptionAchievement

threshold

BenchmarkAMI-7aFibrinolytic Therapy Received Within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival0.800001.00000AMI-8aPrimary PCI Received Within 90 Minutes of Hospital Arrival0.953491.00000HF-1Discharge Instructions0.941181.00000PN-3bBlood Cultures Performed in the Emergency Department Prior to Initial Antibiotic Received in Hospital0.977831.00000PN-6Initial Antibiotic Selection for CAP in Immunocompetent Patient0.959181.00000SCIP-Card-2Surgery Patients on Beta-Blocker Therapy Prior to Arrival Who Received a Beta-Blocker During the Perioperative Period0.971751.00000SCIP-Inf-1Prophylactic Antibiotic Received Within One Hour Prior to Surgical Incision0.986391.00000SCIP-Inf-2Prophylactic Antibiotic Selection for Surgical Patients0.986371.00000SCIP-Inf-3Prophylactic Antibiotics Discontinued Within 24 Hours After Surgery End Time0.974941.00000SCIP-Inf-4Cardiac Surgery Patients With Controlled 6AM Postoperative Serum Glucose0.957980.99767SCIP-Inf-9Urinary Catheter Removed on Postoperative Day 1 or Postoperative Day 20.948910.99991SCIP-VTE-2Surgery Patients Who Received Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxes Within 24 Hours Prior to Surgery to 24 Hours After Surgery0.974030.99998B. Correct of Errors in the Addendum

1. On page 53695, third column, first paragraph, line 2, the figures “8.94 percent (1.0866203)” are corrected to read “8.66 percent (1.0866203)”.

NASA has adopted as final, with minor changes, a proposed rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to include authority, under limited conditions, to issue Anchor Tenancy contracts. Anchor Tenancy means “an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.”

NASA published a proposed rule in theFederal Registerat 76 FR 30301 on May 25, 2011. NASA's Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) currently contains an inaccurate prohibition on anchor tenancy contracts. The prohibition is included in the NFS based on The Space Act, as amended by NASA's FY 1992 Appropriations Act (42 U.S.C. 2459d). The NFS states no appropriated funds may be used to enter into contracts, grants, or other agreements for more than 1 year if the primary effect is to provide a guaranteed customer base for or establish an anchor tenancy in new commercial space hardware or services unless an appropriations Act specifies the new commercial space hardware or services to be developed/used or the contract, grant, or agreement is specified in an appropriations Act. However, subsequent to the prohibition, as part of NASA's FY 1993 Authorization Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806 was added to the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act (CSCA). The latter statute includes limited authority for NASA to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the Agency receives an appropriation that (1) authorizes a multi-year anchor tenancy contract and (2) specifies the commercial space product or service to be developed or used. Furthermore, the NASA Administrator would be required to make a determination that addresses the following six criteria:

(1) The good or service meets the mission requirements of NASA;

(2) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;

(3) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;

(4) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specified identified;

(5) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and

(6) Private capital is at risk in the venture.

The purpose of this final rule is to reconcile the NFS with the statutory authority for Anchor Tenancy contracts.

The due date for public comments in response to the proposed rule was July 25, 2011. NASA received general comments in support of the rule from one respondent. The respondent expressed support for NASA's rule, and noted that it reflects efforts aimed at achieving goals set forth in the Administration's 2010 National Space Policy to support growth in the commercial space sector.

During the comment period, NASA recognized a need to clarify the rule. Consequently, minor changes have been made to the proposed rule in this final rule, as follows: The discussion of statutory authority has been consolidated and simplified; it is now discussed only in paragraph (a). The final rule identifies what is meant by an anchor tenancy whereas anchor tenancy was previously described in the background of theFederal RegisterNotice for the proposed rule.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated January 18, 2011, NASA determined that this rule is not excessively burdensome to the public, and is consistent with the administrative nature of rule. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. because it does not impose any new requirements on small entities. The rule clarifies NASA's authority to enter into Anchor Tenancy contracts, under limited conditions.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) is not applicable because the NFS changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1812

Government procurement.

William P. McNally,Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1812 is amended as follows:

PART 1812—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 1812 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(2) Specifies the commercial space product or service to be developed or used, NASA may enter into a multi-year anchor tenancy contract only if Administrator determines—

(i) The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(ii) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;

(iii) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;

(iv) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specifically identified;

(v) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and

(vi) Private capital is at risk in the venture.

(b) Contracts entered into under such authority may provide for the payment of termination liability in the event that the Government terminates such contracts for its convenience.

(1) Contracts that provide for this payment of termination liability shall include a fixed schedule of such termination liability payments. Liability under such contracts shall not exceed the total payments which the Government would have made after the date of termination to purchase the good or service if the contract were not terminated.

(2) Subject to appropriations, funds available for such termination liability payments may be used for purchase of the good or service upon successful delivery of the good or service pursuant to the contract. In such case, sufficient funds shall remain available to cover any remaining termination liability.

(c)Limitations.(1) Contracts entered into under such authority shall not exceed 10 years in duration.

(2) Such contracts shall provide for delivery of the good or service on a firm, fixed price basis.

(3) To the extent practicable, reasonable performance specifications shall be used to define technical requirements in such contracts.

(4) In any such contract, the Administrator shall reserve the right to completely or partially terminate the contract without payment of such termination liability because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations.

(d) The term “anchor tenancy” means an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.

FMCSA withdraws its August 27, 2012, direct final rule (DFR) amending the definition of “gross combination weight rating” (GCWR) in 49 CFR parts 383 and 390. The DFR would have taken effect on October 26, 2012. However, the Agency received several adverse comments in response to the DFR and will, therefore develop a notice of proposed rulemaking to request public comments on proposed changes to the GCWR definition.

DATES:

The direct final rule published August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51706) is withdrawn effective October 26, 2012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Public Participation and Request for CommentsA. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov,FMCSA-2012-0156. If you do not have access to the internet, you may also view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

II. Background

On August 27, 2012, FMCSA published a DFR to amend the definition of “gross combination weight rating” (GCWR) in 49 CFR parts 383 and 390. The DFR provided that the rule would be effective October 26, 2012, if no adverse comments were received by September 26, 2012. In view of three adverse comments submitted to the docket, FMCSA withdraws the DFR through this notice.

Commenter John F. Nowak stated that the definition of GCWR should not be amended until the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) changes its regulations to require manufacturers to include a vehicle's GCWR in addition to its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on the certification label. He argued that it was difficult at this time for drivers, motor carriers, and law enforcement officers to obtain GCWR information quickly. Mr. Nowak claimed that currently only the second half of the existing definition of GCWR is readily available for use by carrier and enforcement personnel. This commenter went on to say that because FMCSA must be aware of the difficulty in obtaining the manufacturer's GCWR for any particular vehicle, the second sentence of the existing definition must be retained.

Currently, the definitions in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5 both defineGross combination weight rating (GCWR)as the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination (articulated) vehicle. In the absence of a value specified by the manufacturer, GCWR will be determined by adding the GVWR1of the power unit and the total weight of the towed unit and any load thereon.

1GVWR stands for gross vehicle weight rating.

Mr. Nowak agrees with FMCSA that the definition of GCWR should ultimately be changed to reflect NHTSA's definition of that term. Prior to this change, however, he suggests that the FMCSA place the responsibility for obtaining GCWR information on law enforcement officers and refrain from taking adverse action against drivers or carriers for failure to have this information.

Commenter Bryce Baker indicates that manufacturers do not list the GCWR on the vehicle. Even if such a value is available from the manufacturer, he states, the time needed to obtain the information would make enforcement fruitless. Although commenter David S. McQueen also opposes the change included in the DFR, his position seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the GCWR definition used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

FMCSA Response:The comments submitted by these three individuals qualify as adverse. Therefore, under 49 CFR 389.39(d), FMCSA withdraws the direct final rule of August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51706).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.

SUMMARY:

NMFS adjusts the 2012 fishing year sub-annual catch limit for Atlantic Herring Management Area 1A due to an under-harvest in the New Brunswick weir fishery. This action complies with the 2010-2012 specifications and management measures for the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan.

Regulations governing the Atlantic herring fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), optimum yield (OY), domestic harvest and processing, U.S. at-sea processing, border transfer and sub-ACLs for each management area. The 2012 Domestic Annual Harvest was set as 91,200 metric tons (mt); the sub-ACL allocated to Area 1A for the 2012 fishing year (FY) was 26,546 mt and no herring catch was set aside for research in the 2010-2012 specifications (75 FR 48874, August 12, 2010). Due to an over-harvest in Area 1A in 2010, the FY 2012 sub-ACL in Area 1A was revised to 24,668 mt on February 24, 2012 (77 FR 10978, February 24, 2012). An additional 295 mt of the Area 1A sub-ACL is set aside for fixed gear fisheries west of Cutler, ME, until November 1, 2012, reducing the Area 1A sub-ACL to 24,373 mt. Due to the variability of Canadian catch in the New Brunswick weir fishery, a 3,000 mt portion of the 9,000 mt buffer between ABC and OY (the buffer to account for Canadian catch) is allocatedto Area 1A, provided New Brunswick weir landings are lower than the amount specified in the buffer.

The NMFS Regional Administrator is required to monitor the fishery landings in the New Brunswick weir fishery each year. If the New Brunswick weir fishery landings through October 15 are less than 9,000 mt, then 3,000 mt of the weir fishery allocation is required to be added to the Area 1A sub-ACL in November of the same year. When such a determination is made, NMFS is required to publish a notification in theFederal Registerto adjust the Area 1A sub-ACL for the remainder of the FY.

The Regional Administrator has determined, based on the best available information, that the New Brunswick weir fishery landings for FY 2012 through October 15, 2012, were 409 mt. Therefore, effective November 1, 2012, 3,000 mt will be allocated to the Area 1A sub-ACL, increasing the FY 2012 Area 1A sub-ACL from 24,373 mt to 27,373 mt. Because any increase to a sub-ACL also increases the stock-wide ACL, this allocation increases the 2012 stock-wide ACL from 91,200 mt to 94,200 mt. Additionally, the allocation of 3,000 mt to Area 1A will be taken into consideration when NMFS projects that catch will reach 95 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This action increases the sub-ACL for Area 1A by 3,000 mt (from 24,373 mt to 27,373 mt) through December 31, 2012. The regulations at § 648.201(f) require such action to help mitigate some of the negative economic effects associated with the reduction in the Area 1A sub-ACL in the 2010-2012 specifications process (40 percent less than in 2009). The herring fishery extends from January 1 to December 31. Data indicate the New Brunswick weir fishery landed 409 mt through October 15, 2012. There is a limited amount of time between October 15 (when the New Brunswick weir fishery slows for the year) and the end of the U.S. herring fishing year on December 31. If implementation of this Area 1A sub-ACL increase is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the increase may not be effective prior to the end of the 2012 fishing year and the 3,000 mt allocation would not be available for harvest. Additionally, the availability of herring in Area 1A is seasonal. As the end of the fishing year approaches, herring can disperse or move out of Area 1A, and/or the approach of winter weather can hinder fishery access to herring in Area 1A. The best available information indicates that current catch is close to 95 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL. If implementation of this increase is delayed to solicit prior public comment, herring may no longer be available to the fishery for harvest in Area 1A, thereby undermining the intended economic benefits associated with this action. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

NASA proposes to extend coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment to all-tier procurement and non-procurement actions under all grants and cooperative agreements.

DATES:

Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before December 28, 2012 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AD81 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted to Leigh Pomponio via email atleigh.pomponio@nasa.gov.

The revisions herein are part of NASA's retrospective plan under EO 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed at:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/581545main_Final%20Plan%20for%20Retrospective%20Analysis%20of%20Existing%20Regulations.pdf.

On August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51865) The Office of Management and Budget promulgated guidelines to Federal agencies on the governnmentwide debarment suspension system for nonprocurement programs. The OMB guidance to Federal Agencies was amended on November 15, 2006 (71 FRN 664320). These two notices resulted in the governmentwide regulation at 2 CFR 180. Specifically, at § 180.220(c), OMB offered Federal agencies flow down options for application of nonprocurement suspension and debarment regulations to procurement actions under covered transactions. OMB permitted Agencies to flow down requirements to just the first-tier or to all lower-tier participants.

On April 20, 2007, NASA promulgated a final rule (72 FR 19783) which established a new Part 1880 in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on nonprocurement debarment and suspension. This rule implemented and supplemented the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance provided at 2 CFR Part 180. It included agency-specific regulations related to nonprocurement suspension and debarment. At the time of that action, NASA elected to limit the flow down of nonprocurement suspension and debarment applicability to only first-tier procurement contacts thereunder. However, NASA has reconsidered its position on flow down and is currently proposing to revise 2 CFR 1880.220 to apply to all participants at all tiers under procurement and non-procurement actions at any dollar amount. NASA will not permit any subawards to individuals or entities that are listed on the Excluded Parties List Service (EPLS).

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NASA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601et seq.It will require entities to check the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) prior to making subawards under a grant or cooperative agreement; the EPLS is an easy-to-access and use on-line resource.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) is not applicable because the NFS changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.

List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 1880

Government procurement.

William P. McNally,Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

Accordingly, 2 CFR Part 1880 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 2 CFR part 1880 continues to read as follows:

§ 1880.220What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

NASA extends coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement action, to all lower tier subcontracts, at all dollar values, consistent with OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) and the figure in the appendix at 2 CFR part 180. NASA does not permit subcontracting to suspended or debarred entities at any tier, at any dollar amount.

We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires replacing wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps with new wiring, installing Teflon sleeving on the wiring, and doing associated actions; and doing repetitive inspections to detect damage of the wiring or evidence of a fuel leak. Since we issued that AD, we have determined through service experience that the inspection interval was too long. This proposed AD would reduce the repetitive inspection interval. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps, which could cause electrical arcing that could puncture the conduit containing the wire, and result in a fuel tank explosion or a fire adjacent to the fuel tank.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1110; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-013-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

On August 17, 2001, we issued AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001), for certain Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. That AD requires replacing the wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps with new wiring, installing Teflon sleeving on the wiring, and doing associated actions; and doing repetitive inspections to detect damage of the wiring or evidence of a fuel leak. That AD resulted from a report that, while investigating a fuel leak around the bolts on the number 1 fuel boost pump, an operator found wire damage where the fuel boost pump wiring exited the boost pump and entered the boost pump access area. We issued that AD to detect and correct damaged wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps, which could cause electrical arcing that could puncture the conduit containing the wire, and result in a fuel tank explosion or a fire adjacent to the fuel tank.

Since we issued AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001), we have determined through service experience that the inspection interval was too long.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001). This proposed AD would reduce the repetitive inspection interval from 30,000 flight hours to 15,000 flight hours. This change has been coordinated with the manufacturer.

This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001). Since AD 2001-17-20 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic burden. The increase in replacement labor costs of 31 work hours in AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001), to the 38 work hours specified in this proposed AD, is due to the opening and closing hours being included in the cost of this proposed AD. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category; line numbers 1 through 941 inclusive.

This AD was prompted by a report that, while investigating a fuel leak around the bolts on the number 1 fuel boost pump on a Boeing Model 707 series airplane, an operator found wire damage where the fuel boost pump wiring exited the boost pump and entered the boost pump access area. Since we issued AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001) to address the unsafe condition, we have determined through service experience that the inspection interval was too long. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps, which could cause electrical arcing that could puncture the conduit containing the wire, and result in a fuel tank explosion or a fire adjacent to the fuel tank.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001). Within 1 year or 4,000 flight hours after October 1, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-17-20), whichever occurs first: Replace the wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps, install Teflon sleeving overthe wiring, and do all associated actions, per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin A3500, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2001. The associated actions include performing a general visual inspection of the area around each fuel boost pump and override pump for evidence of a fuel leak; finding the source of any fuel leak and repairing the affected area; replacing the conduit, if required; and performing a detailed visual inspection of the wiring installed in the conduit for evidence of electrical arcing or a fuel leak, or exposed copper wire. If replacement of the conduit is deferred per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin A3500, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2001, repeat the inspection for fuel leaks every 500 flight hours until the conduit is replaced, and replace the conduit within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs first.

(1) For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”

(2) For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001), with a new compliance time. After replacement of the wiring per paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat the detailed visual inspection of the wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps for damage, such as evidence of electrical arcing or exposed copper wire, or evidence of a fuel leak. After the effective date of this AD, repeat the inspection one time at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin A3500, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2001. If any electrical arcing or exposed copper wire or evidence of a fuel leak is detected during any inspection per this paragraph, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions (including finding the source of any fuel leak and repairing the affected area, replacing the wiring, replacing the conduit, or installing new Teflon sleeving; as applicable) according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin A3500, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2001. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight hours.

(1) Within 30,000 flight hours after the most recent inspection.

(2) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Within 15,000 flight hours after the most recent inspection.

(ii) Within 3 years after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before October 1, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001)), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin A3500, dated July 27, 2000, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2001-17-20, Amendment 39-12411 (66 FR 44954, August 27, 2001), are approved as AMOCs for this AD, except for AMOCS that change the inspection frequency.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Models DA 42, DA 42 M-NG, and DA 42 NG airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as overextension of the main landing gear (MLG) shock absorber that could lead to the MLG jamming in the gear bay and result in damage to the aircraft or occupant injury. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:office@diamond-air.at;Internet:http://www.diamond-air.at. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small AirplaneDirectorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1148; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-039-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2012-0174, dated September 4, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

An incident was reported where a Diamond DA 42 experienced main landing gear (MLG) extension problems during approach, with the left hand (LH) MLG not down. An uneventful landing was made with minor damage to the aeroplane and no injuries to occupants.

Subsequent investigation results showed that the affected MLG leg shock absorber, P/N D60-3277-10-00, had overextended, resulting in the MLG being jammed in the gear bay. The overextension had been caused by a retaining nut in the MLG shock absorber which had loosened itself during operation.

This condition, if not corrected, could inhibit proper extension of the MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

Prompted by the reported event, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) published Recommended Service Bulletin (RSB) 42-089/RSB 42NG-017 which includes Working Instruction (WI) WI-RSB-089/WI-RSB 42NG-017 (published as a single document) to recommend operators to modify the affected dampers to P/N D60-3277-10-00_01 standard, which incorporates installation of a new retaining nut and a new seal system for the MLG damper that is more durable and can withstand a greater temperature range.

Since that RSB was issued, further analysis has shown that the risk of a MLG failing to extend is greater than was initially determined. Consequently, DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-095/MSB 42NG-026 to alert aeroplane owners and operators accordingly. The new MSB contains the same instructions as the earlier RSB, but is no longer `at owner's discretion'.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 175 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $115 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $49,875, or $285 per product.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Thisproposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as overextension of the main landing gear (MLG) shock absorber. We are issuing this AD to prevent the MLG jamming in the gear bay, which could result in damage to the aircraft or occupant injury.

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:mike.kiesov@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)Airworthy Product:For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements:For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure, and repair of any damage found during the modification. Since we issued that AD, a compliance time error involving the optional threshold formula was discovered, which could allow an airplane to exceed the acceptable compliance time for addressing the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would specify a maximum compliance time limit that overrides the optional threshold formula results. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the strut.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1109; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-172-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

On August 29, 2003, we issued AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), for certain Model 757 series airplanes powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. That AD requires modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure, and repair of any damage found during the modification. That AD resulted from reports indicating that the actual operational loads applied to the nacelle are higher than the analytical loads that were used during the initial design. Subsequent analysis and service history, which included numerous reports of fatigue cracking on certain strut and wing structure, indicated that fatigue cracking can occur on the primary strut structure before an airplane reaches its design service objective. We issued that AD to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the strut.

Since we issued AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), an error in the optional threshold formula of the compliance time was discovered. If the optional threshold formula is used, it could result in an unacceptable compliance time for addressing the unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, dated May 14, 1998; or Revision 1, dated October 11, 2001; as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the nacelle strut and wing structure. Boeing has since revised this service bulletin. We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009. This service bulletin specifies a compliance time that limits the results from the optional threshold compliance time formula to within eight years from the issuance date of this service bulletin.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003). This proposed AD would reduce certain compliance times. The optional threshold formula method is limited to within eight years after the effective date of the AD. This proposedAD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

Change to Existing AD (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003)

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003). Since AD 2003-18-05 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 278 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic burden.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by reports indicating that the actual operational loads applied to the nacelle are higher than the analytical loads that were used during the initial design. Subsequent analysis and service history, which includes numerous reports of fatigue cracking on certain strut and wing structure, indicated that fatigue cracking can occur on the primary strutstructure before an airplane reaches its design service objective. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the strut.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Retained Modification, With New Service Information and Reduced Compliance Time

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), with new service information and a reduced compliance time. Modify the nacelle strut and wing structure on both the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, dated May 14, 1998; Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 1, dated October 11, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009; at the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

(1) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles.

(ii) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) or (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.

(A) Within 20 years since the date of manufacture.

(B) Within the compliance time calculated using the optional threshold formula described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009, or within 8 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), with new service information. Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the accomplishment of the modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure required by paragraph (g) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0027, Revision 1, dated October 27, 1994; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, dated May 14, 1998, or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2006; as applicable; in accordance with those service bulletins. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2006, to accomplish the requirements of this paragraph.

(i) Retained Repair, With New Service Information

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), with new service information. If any damage to airplane structure is found during the accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, dated May 14, 1998; Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 1, dated October 11, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, Revision 2, dated May 7, 2009; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Retained Modification, With New Service Information

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), with new service information. Modify the nacelle strut (including replacing the upper link with a new, improved part, and modifying the wire support bracket attached to the upper link), in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, dated May 14, 1998; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2006; at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, Revision 1, dated July 31, 2006, to accomplish the requirements of this paragraph.

(1) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishment of the modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(2) Prior to the accumulation of 27,000 total flight cycles (for Model 757-200 series airplanes) or 29,000 total flight cycles (for Model 757-200PF series airplanes), or within 2 years after October 16, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003)), whichever is later.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-18-05, Amendment 39-13296 (68 FR 53496, September 11, 2003), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is proposing to amend its regulations to revise the filing requirements for natural gas pipelines that choose to recover Commission-assessed annual charges through an annual charge adjustment (ACA) clause. Currently, natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause must make a tariff filing to reflect a revised ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission for that fiscal year. In order to reduce theregulatory burden on these pipelines, the Commission proposes to eliminate this annual filing requirement. In its place, the Commission proposes to require natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized annual charge unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site located athttp://www.ferc.gov.

DATES:

Comments are due November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

•Electronic Filing through: http://www.ferc.gov.Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is proposing to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 154.402 to revise the filing requirements for natural gas pipelines that choose to recover Commission-assessed annual charges through an annual charge adjustment (ACA) clause. Currently, natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause must make a tariff filing to reflect a revised ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission for that fiscal year. In order to reduce the regulatory burden on these pipelines, the Commission proposes to eliminate this annual filing requirement. In its place, the Commission proposes to require natural gas pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized annual charge unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site located athttp://www.ferc.gov.

I. Background

2. The Commission is required to “assess and collect fees and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the costs incurred by the Commission in that fiscal year.”1To accomplish this, the Commission created the annual charges program, which is designed to recover the costs of administering the natural gas, oil, and electric programs by calculating the costs of each program, net of filing fees, and properly allocating them among the three programs.2This proceeding applies only to the recovery of annual charges assessed to entities in the natural gas program.

3. The provisions governing the assessment of annual charges are codified in Part 382 of the Commission's regulations.3In brief, after the Commission calculates the costs of administering the natural gas regulatory program,4it assesses those costs to natural gas pipeline companies (Pipelines).5Each Pipeline is assessed a proportional share of the Commission's costs of administering the natural gas program. That proportional share is based on the following:

5For the purposes of this proceeding, we use the term natural gas pipeline company (Pipeline) as it is defined in 18 CFR 382.101(a) (2012): “Any person: (1) Engaged in natural gas sales for resale or natural gas transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Natural Gas Act whose sales for resale and transportation exceed 200,000 Mcf at 14.73 psi (60 °F) in any of the three calendar years immediately preceding the fiscal year for which the Commission is assessing annual charges; and (2) Not engaged solely in “first sales” of natural gas as that term is defined in section 2(21) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978; and (3) To whom the Commission has not issued a Natural Gas Act Section 7(f) declaration; and (4) Not holding a limited jurisdiction certificate.”

The proportion of the total gas subject to Commission regulation which was sold and transported by each company in the immediately preceding calendar year to the sum of the gas subject to the Commission regulation which was sold and transported in the immediately preceding calendar year by all natural gas pipeline companies being assessed annual charges.6

618 CFR 382.202 (2012).

For example, if a Pipeline sold and transported 10 percent of the total gas subject to the Commission's regulations, that Pipeline would be assessed 10 percent of the costs of the natural gas regulatory program in the form of an annual charge.

4. Pipelines are entitled to recover these annual charges from their customers, and they have two options for doing so. First, upon Commission approval, a Pipeline may adjust its rates annually to recover the annual charges through an ACA clause.7Second, a Pipeline may seek to recover its annual charges through its general transportation rates.8This proceeding proposes to modify only the first method, i.e., recovery of annual charges through an ACA clause, as it is widely used among Pipelines.

7Id.at 154.402.

8Order No. 472, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,746 at 30,629.

5. Order No. 472 recognized that although the Commission generally disfavors the use of tracking mechanisms, it is appropriate that Pipelines be permitted to pass through these annual charges directly to customers.9Accordingly, the Commission provided Pipelines an option of passing along the annual charges to customers through a surcharge to their transportation rates reflected in the ACA clause.10The Commission's requirements for Pipelines that choose to utilize an ACA clause are codified in section 154.402 of the Commission's regulations.11

9Id.

10Id.

1118 CFR 154.402 (2012).

The ACA clause must be filed with the Commission and indicate the amount of annual charges to be flowed through per unit of energy sold or transported (ACA unit charge). The ACA unit charge will be specified by the Commission at the time the Commission calculates the annual charge bills. A company must reflect the ACA unit charge in each of its rate schedules applicable to sales or transportation deliveries. The company must apply the ACA unit charge to the usage component of rate schedules with two-part rates. A company may recover annual charges through an ACA unit charge only if its rates do not otherwise reflect the costs of annual charges assessed by the Commission under § 382.106(a) of this chapter. The applicable annual charge, required by § 382.103 of this chapter, must be paid before the company applies the ACA unit charge.12

12Id.at 154.402(a).

6. Pipelines that seek to recover annual charges through an ACA clause must file a tariff record containing the following:

(1) A statement that the company is collecting an ACA per unit charge, as approved by the Commission, applicable toall the pipeline's sales and transportation rate schedules, (2) The per unit charge of the ACA, (3) The proposed effective date of the tariff change (30 days after the filing of the tariff sheet or section, unless a shorter period is specifically requested in a waiver petition and approved), and (4) A statement that the pipeline will not recover any annual charges recorded in FERC Account 928 in a proceeding under subpart D of [part 154 of the Commission's regulations].13

13Id.at 154.402(b).

Additionally, the Commission requires these Pipelines to file revised tariff records to reflect changes to the ACA unit charge authorized by the Commission each fiscal year.14

14Id.at 154.402(c).

7. Each year the Commission sets the ACA unit charge for the natural gas program in July.15Pipelines that wish to begin collecting the ACA unit charge on the first day of the fiscal year are required to file revised tariff records reflecting changes in the ACA unit charge by September 1 of each year, to be effective October 1 of that year.16So long as the Pipeline has paid its annual charge to the Commission, the Commission will accept the tariff records, and they will go into effect on October 1. To the extent that the ACA unit charge remains the same from one year to the next, existing Pipelines that already reflect that ACA unit charge in their tariffs need not make a filing for that year. This annual process is designed to ensure that Pipelines collect charges for the entire fiscal year, as defined in Part 382 of the Commission's regulations.

15The Commission publishes this change via a notice entitled, “FY [Year] Gas Annual Charges Correction for Annual Charges Unit Charge,” which is available on the Commission's Web site, located athttp://www.ferc.gov.

16See id.at 382.102(i) (defining “fiscal year” as the twelve-month period that begins on the first day of October and ends on the last day of September);see also id.at 154.402(b)(3) (requiring the proposed effective date of the tariff change revising the ACA unit charge to be 30 days after the date the change is filed, unless a shorter period is specifically requested in a waiver petition and approved).

8. In 2011, the Commission received 134 filings to reflect the annual change in the ACA unit charge. In years in which the ACA unit charge does not change, there are fewer filings. However, some Pipelines, such as those that have recently gone into service and have been billed an annual charge, are still permitted to submit a filing to the Commission in order to pass along the annual charge to their customers.

II. Discussion

9. In an effort to reduce the regulatory burden associated with annual tariff filings to reflect the current year's ACA unit charge, the Commission proposes to eliminate the annual filing requirement for Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause. In its place, the Commission proposes to require Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate the Commission-authorized ACA unit rate by reference to that rate, as published on the Commission's Web site. Accordingly, Pipelines that wish to continue utilizing an ACA clause would be required to make a one-time tariff revision that incorporates the ACA unit charge published on the Commission's Web site into the Pipeline's tariff as the ACA unit charge for the relevant fiscal year.17

17See id.at 382.102(i) (defining “fiscal year” as the twelve-month period that begins on the first day of October and ends on the last day of September).

10. In proposing this change, the Commission is aware that in addition to the basic statutory requirement that all rates and charges be on file with the Commission,18the filing requirements associated with the annual revisions to the ACA unit charge serve important practical functions. First, the annual tariff filing (and the Commission's acceptance of that filing) establishes an effective date upon which the Pipeline is entitled to begin collecting that fiscal year's ACA unit charge. Second, the annual filing provides the Commission with an opportunity to ensure that the Pipeline has actually paid the annual charge that it seeks to recover from customers.19

1815 U.S.C. 717c (2006).

19Order No. 472, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,746 at 30,629-30 (explaining that Pipelines may only collect those annual charges that they have already paid to the Commission).

11. Because the annual filing requirement would be eliminated under the proposed reform and no longer serve these functions, the Commission's proposal is designed to replicate them. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to incorporate by reference into their tariffs the ACA unit charge specified in the annual notice issued by the Commission entitled “FY [Year] Gas Annual Charges Correction for Annual Charges Unit Charge.” This ACA unit charge shall be effective on the first day of October following issuance of this notice and shall extend to the last day of September the following year (i.e., the duration of the fiscal year). However, the ACA unit charge shall only be incorporated by reference into the Pipeline's tariff, and thereby assessed to shippers, if the Pipeline has paid its annual assessment, as reflected on a new notice, entitled “Payment Status of Pipeline Billings—FY [Year],” that the Commission will issue each year. This notice will identify the Pipelines that have been assessed annual charges for a fiscal year and indicate whether they have paid their bills and are, therefore, authorized to recover the ACA unit charge from shippers. The Commission will issue the “Payment Status of Pipeline Billings—FY [Year]” notice on the last business day of the fiscal year, and provide updates as necessary. All of the documents can be found on the Annual Charges page of the Natural Gas section of the Commission's Web site, located athttp://www.ferc.gov.

12. We emphasize that the only thing changed by this Proposed Rule is the filing requirement for those Pipelines that utilize an ACA clause. This Proposed Rule does not prevent Pipelines from continuing to recover annual charges assessed by the Commission through their transportation rates, as established in a general rate case. Nor does this Proposed Rule modify how the Commission calculates the costs of the natural gas regulatory program or how the ACA unit charge is calculated or assessed.

13. We are taking this action as part of our commitment to continually review our regulations and eliminate those requirements that impose an unnecessary burden on regulated entities. We find that our proposal to have Pipelines incorporate the ACA unit charge by reference to the notices published on the Commission's Web site will retain all of the transparency and consumer safeguards embodied in the Commission's existing regulations. However, it will eliminate approximately 145 filings each year, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on the Pipelines and the Commission.

III. Compliance

14. The Commission proposes that Pipelines be required to implement the proposed changes in time for the 2014 fiscal year. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require Pipelines utilizing an ACA clause to make a one-time compliance filing revising their tariffs to incorporate by reference the ACA unit charge published on the Commission's Web site, as discussed above. In order to give Pipelines subject to these proposed modifications adequate time to implement these changes, this compliance filing will be due 30 days after the Final Rule is published in theFederal Register. Pipelines will be required to seek an effective date of October 1, 2013, for these compliance filings.

IV. Information Collection Statement

15. The following collections of information contained in this proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The following burden estimates reflect the time necessary for respondents to update their tariffs according to this proposed rule, as well as the avoided burden as respondents will no longer have to file ACA charge tariff adjustments. The Commission estimates it will require eight hours per company to make the one time tariff changes proposed in this rule. In each year, including the first, the Commission estimates that filers will see a two hour per year reduction in burden from no longer filing ACA charge tariff adjustments. The following shows the burden hour impact of the proposed rule.

The average annual burden associated with this rule over three years is 97 hours (870 hours − 290 hours − 290 hours = 290 hours; 290 hours/3 years = 96.67 hours/year). Accordingly, the Commission estimates that each respondent, on average, should experience a net reduction in burden (2 hours per year) starting with the fifth year and in each year thereafter.

Information Collection Costs:The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average cost for all respondents to be the following:20

20The cost figures are derived by multiplying the total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate of $59 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and support staff wages and benefits obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistic data athttp://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htmandhttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmrates).

• One-time total cost of $51,330 (870 hours * $59/hour)

• Avoided cost per year of $17,110 (290 hours * $59/hour)

Title:FERC-542, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Tracking.

Action:One-time filing and reduced future filings.

OMB Control Number:1902-0070.

Respondents:Natural Gas Pipelines.

Frequency of Responses:One-time implementation and future reduction in number of responses. Responses are mandatory.

Necessity of Information:The proposals in this Proposed Rule would, if implemented, reduce the burden of interstate natural gas pipelines resulting from compliance with the Commission's regulations.

Internal Review:The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to proposed modification of the Commission's regulations and made a preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to reduce the burden imposed by the Commission on the natural gas industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

17. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, telephone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-4718].

V. Environmental Analysis

18. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.21The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment.22The actions proposed here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of facilities.23Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared as part of this NOPR.

19. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)24generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.25The SBA has established a size standard for pipelines transporting natural gas, stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts are less than $25.5 million.26

245 U.S.C. 601-612.

2513 CFR 121.101.

2613 CFR 121.201, subsection 486.

20. The regulations proposed here impose requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of which are not small businesses. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a smallentity. Approximately 145 entities would be potential respondents subject to data collection FERC-545 reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are large entities. For the year 2011 (the most recent year for which information is available), only 15 companies not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues of less than $25.5 million. Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit all customers, including small businesses. The Commission estimates that the one-time cost per small entity is $354.27In the future, small entities should see a cost savings related to avoiding an annual ACA charge adjustment filing. The Commission does not consider the estimated $354 impact per entity to be significant. Accordingly, pursuant to § 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that this proposed rule should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

27This number is derived by multiplying the hourly figure (6) by the cost per hour ($59). 6 hrs * $59/hr = $354.

VII. Comment Procedures

21. The Commission invites interested persons to submit written comments on the proposed regulation modifications promulgated in this NOPR, as well as any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 28, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-14-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format.

22. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

23. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

24. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

25. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in theFederal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.

26. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

27. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email atferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room atpublic.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 154

Natural gas, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By direction of the Commission.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 154.402, Chapter I, Title 18,Code of Federal Regulations,as follows:

PART 154—RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

1. The authority citation for part 154 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7102-7352.

2. Revise section 154.402 to read as follows:

§ 154.402ACA expenditures.

(a)Requirements.Upon approval by the Commission, a natural gas pipeline company may adjust its rates, annually, to recover from its customers annual charges assessed by the Commission under part 382 of this chapter pursuant to an annual charge adjustment clause (ACA clause). Prior to the start of each fiscal year, the Commission will post on its Web site the amount of annual charges to be flowed through per unit of energy sold or transported (ACA unit charge) for that fiscal year. A company's ACA clause must be filed with the Commission and must incorporate by reference the ACA unit charge for the upcoming fiscal year as posted on the Commission's Web site. A company must incorporate by reference the ACA unit charge posted on the Commission's Web site in each of its rate schedules applicable to sales or transportation deliveries. The company must apply the ACA unit charge posted on the Commission's Web site to the usage component of rate schedules with two-part rates. A company may recover annual charges through an ACA unit charge only if its rates do not otherwise reflect the costs of annual charges assessed by the Commission under § 382.106(a) of this chapter. The applicable annual charge, required by § 382.103 of this chapter, must be paid before the company applies the ACA unit charge. Upon payment to the Commission of its annual charges, the ACA unit charge for that fiscal year will be incorporated by reference into the company's tariff, effective throughout that fiscal year.

(b)Application for Rate Treatment Authorization.A company seeking authorization to use an ACA unit charge must file with the Commission a separate ACA tariff record containing:

(1) A statement that the company is collecting an ACA unit charge, as calculated by the Commission, applicable to all the pipeline's sales and transportation rate schedules,

(2) A statement that the ACA unit charge, as revised annually and posted on the Commission's Web site, is incorporated by reference into the company's tariff,

(3) For companies with existing ACA clauses, a proposed effective date of the tariff change of October 1, 2013; for companies seeking to utilize an ACA clause after October 1, 2013, a proposed effective date 30 days after the filing of the tariff record, unless a shorter period is specifically requested in a waiver petition and approved), and

(4) A statement that the pipeline will not recover any annual charges recorded in FERC Account 928 in a proceeding under subpart D of this part

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to amend its regulations under the Interstate Commerce Act.1The Commission proposes to rewrite, remove, and update its regulations governing the form, composition and filing of rates and charges by interstate oil pipelines for transportation in interstate commerce. This proposal is a part of the Commission's ongoing program to review its filing and reporting requirements and reduce unnecessary burdens by eliminating the collection of data that are not necessary to the performance of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities.

149 app. U.S.C. 1-85 (2000).

DATES:

Comments are due November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

• Electronic Filing throughhttp://www.ferc.gov.Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) proposes to amend Part 341 of its regulations to rewrite, remove, and update its regulations governing the form, composition and filing of rates and charges by interstate oil pipelines for transportation in interstate commerce.2This proposal is a part of the Commission's ongoing program to review its filing and reporting requirements and reduce unnecessary burdens by eliminating the collection of data that are not necessary to the performance of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities.

218 CFR Part 341 (2012).

I. Background

2. Section 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) requires interstate oil pipelines to file rates, fares, and charges for transportation on their systems, and also to file copies of contracts with other common carriers for such traffic. Similarly, section 20 of the ICA requires annual or special reports from carriers subject to the ICA collected by the Commission.3These requirements are reflected in 18 CFR Parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations.4

3. In 2008, the Commission adopted Order No. 714, which required that all tariffs and tariff revisions and rate change applications for oil pipelines and other FERC-regulated entities be filed electronically according to a set of standards developed in conjunction with the North American Energy Standards Board.5The Commission adopted Order No. 714, in part, to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, and the E-Government Act of 2002 by developing the capability to file electronically with the Commission via the Internet. As relevant here, the Commission reasoned that electronic filing provides for easier tracking of document filing activity; potentially reduces mailing and courier fees; allows concurrent access to the tariff filing by multiple parties as well as the ability to download and print tariff filings; and provides automatic email notification to an applicant of receipt of the filing. Consequently, since April 1, 2010, all tariff filings with the Commission must be made electronically.6

4. As noted, sections 6 and 20 of the ICA require interstate oil pipelines to file rates, fares, and charges for transportation on their systems, and also to file copies of contracts with other common carriers for such traffic. The Commission now proposes an overhaul of its regulations in Part 341 that incorporate “housekeeping” changes to eliminate obsolete language and sections. The proposed Part 341 changes represent reorganization, rewriting, updating, modification, consolidation, and pruning of the current regulations. The changes provide for more useful and less burdensome data filed in electronic format. In an effort to increase public access to interstate oil pipeline tariffs, reduce interstate oil pipelines' regulatory burden of making tariff filings, and to improve interstate oil pipeline service to their shippers, the Commission proposes modifying Part 341 of its regulations. Many of these changes reflect the requirements established in Order No. 714.

5. Consistent with the Commission's goal to streamline its procedures to eliminate unnecessary regulatory obligations, the Commission proposes to eliminate the paper posting requirements of sections 341.0(a)(7), 341.7, and 341.3(c) of its regulations. Section 341.0(a)(7) currently provides that oil pipelines must post their tariffs by making them “available during regular business hours for public inspection in a convenient form and place at the carrier's principal office and other offices of the carrier where business is conducted with affected shippers, or placing a copy on the Internet in a form accessible by the public.” Similarly, section 341.7 requires that “[c]oncurrences must be maintained at carriers' offices and produced upon request.”7Lastly, section 341.3(c) lays out the requirements for “loose-leaf tariffs,” i.e., paper tariffs.

718 CFR 341.7 (2012).See also18 CFR 341.0(a)(2) (defining a concurrence as the agreement of a carrier to participate in the joint rates or regulations published by another carrier).

6. The Commission proposes to revise 341.0(a)(7) to eliminate the requirement that oil pipelines make their tariffs “available for public inspection in a convenient form and place at thecarriers' principal office and other offices where business is conducted.” Instead, consistent with the requirements for public utilities and interstate natural gas pipelines, the Commission proposes to mandate that oil pipelines electronically post their currently effective, pending and suspended tariffs on their public Web sites.8The Commission also proposes to revise section 341.7 of its regulations to eliminate the requirement that “concurrences be maintained at carriers' offices” in paper form. In conjunction with these changes, the Commission proposes to update section 341.3 of its regulations by removing subsection 341.3(c), which references outdated “loose-leaf tariffs.” These proposals should reduce the burden on interstate oil pipelines while increasing the ease of accessing oil pipeline tariffs for shippers and possibly the oil pipelines themselves.

8The terms of “effective,” “pending” and “suspended” are those used by Order No. 714 and eTariff, and for this document. The equivalent terms in 18 CFR 341.0(b)(4) (2012) are “current,” “proposed” and “suspended,” respectively.See also18 CFR 35.7 (2012) (establishing the Public Utility Electronic Filing Requirements) and 18 CFR 284.12 (2012) (establishing the Natural Gas Electronic Filing Requirements).

2. Service of Filings

7. The Commission proposes to revise section 341.1(a) of its regulations to become consistent with section 385.2010 of its regulations by eliminating an oil pipeline's obligation to “serve tariff publications and justifications to each shipper and subscriber” by paper. Section 385.2010(f)(2) provides that, subject to certain limitations and exceptions, “service of any document in proceedings commenced on or after March 21, 2005, must be made by electronic means unless the sender and recipient agree otherwise or the recipient's email address is unavailable from the official service list.”9This proposed change will create a uniform service requirement for all Commission-regulated entities and eliminate any ambiguity regarding the Commission's preferred mode of service. Moreover, this proposal should reduce the burden on interstate oil pipelines while increasing ease of tracking document filing activity and potentially reducing mailing and courier fees.

918 CFR 385.2010 (2012).

3. Index of Effective Tariffs

8. As part of its efforts to eliminate unnecessary filing requirements, the Commission proposes to make changes to section 341.9 of its regulations, which specifies the information that an oil pipeline's tariff index must contain and how it must be organized. Section 341.9(a) of the Commission's regulations provides that each Commission-regulated “carrier must publish as a separate tariff publication under its FERC Tariff numbering system, a complete index of all effective tariffs to which it is a party * * *.” Section 341.9(e) further provides that the “index must be kept current by supplements numbered consecutively. The supplements may be issued quarterly. At a minimum, the index must be reissued every four years.”

9. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement that oil pipelines make a tariff filing setting forth an index of all effective tariffs to which it is a party and replace such requirement with an obligation that oil pipelines post the index of tariffs on their public Web sites. The Commission also proposes to simplify the information oil pipelines must include by requiring that the index of tariffs identify for each tariff: (1) The product being shipped and (2) the origin and destination points for that product. The Commission further proposes that oil pipelines update the index of tariffs within ninety days of any change.

10. This proposal would eliminate the need of an oil pipeline to make a tariff filing. The posting of index tariffs on an oil pipeline's public Web site would also provide shippers with more current information. Importantly, this proposal would simplify what is required to be contained in the index of tariffs without negatively impacting the information provided to shippers.

11. Similarly, many oil pipelines only have one or two tariffs on file with the Commission. For oil pipelines with a limited number of tariffs, the Commission questions the value of an index of tariffs and believes that such index provides little benefit to shippers. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require only oil pipelines with more than two tariffs to maintain an index of tariffs on their public Web sites. The Commission estimates that the proposed changes to the index of tariff requirements will eliminate approximately twenty-two unnecessary filings each year. These changes will still provide shippers and the public at large with current and useful information, without any negative impact.

B. Electronic Updates and Filing Requirements

12. Many of the tariff filing and tariff maintenance requirements currently stated in part 341 of the Commission's regulations are premised on the maintenance of paper records. Since the implementation of Order No. 714, however, some oil pipeline tariff filings are now obsolete. In light of these changes, as explained below, the Commission proposes removing the filing requirements for amendments to tariff provided for under section 341.4 of the Commission's regulations, including the amendment and suspension requirements.

1. Tariff Supplements

13. Section 341.4(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations allows an oil pipeline's tariff to be supplemented only once.10The Commission believes that this provision is now outdated because it is practical for oil pipelines to modify electronic tariffs at any time. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to delete the provisions in section 341.4(a)(1).

14. Section 341.4(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations sets forth the requirements for maintenance of oil pipeline tariffs that are amended, canceled, or reissued.11In Order No. 714, the Commission required oil pipelines to maintain Record Version Numbers for each tariff record.12Consequently, supersession data is now maintained electronically13and the provisions set forth in section 341.4(a)(2) are obsolete. Consequently, the Commission proposes deleting these provisions.

1118 CFR 341.4(a)(2) (2012).

12Record Version Number is the representation of the version of the Tariff Record.See Implementation Guide for Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300 and 341 Tariff Filings(Implementation Guide) located on the Commission Web site.

13Tariff record supersession data includes the following: Record Current Status, Current Effective Date, and FERC Order Date.See eTariff Viewerlocated on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov/.

3. Cancelling Tariffs

15. The Commission proposes to consolidate the instructions for cancellation of tariffs into Section 341.5 of the Commission's regulations.14Section 341.4(b) of the Commission's regulations requires oil pipelines to file supplements to an amendment to a tariff “when tariffs are canceled without reissue.”15Section 341.5 of theCommission's regulations also details requirements in the event that an oil pipeline's tariff is canceled. Rather than addressing cancelation in two separate regulations, the Commission proposes to consolidate and simplify the requirements relating to oil pipeline tariff cancelations into section 341.5 of the Commission's regulations by detailing that if an oil pipeline tariff is no longer offered, then the oil pipeline must cancel such tariff within thirty days of the termination of the tariff.

16. The Commission proposes to eliminate the filing requirements for oil pipeline suspension supplements required by section 341.4(f) of the Commission's regulations. Section 341.4(f) provides for oil pipelines a “suspension supplement must be filed for each suspended tariff or suspended part of a tariff within 30 days of the issuance of a suspension order.”16Section 341.1(f) further provides that the suspension supplement, which must be served on all subscribers, “must include the date it is issued, a reproduction of the ordering paragraphs of the suspension order, a statement that the tariff or portion of the tariff was suspended until the date stated in the suspension order, a reference to the docket number under which the suspension order was issued, and a statement that the previous tariff publication remains in effect.”

1618 CFR 341.4(f) (2012).

17. This suspension supplement tariff record filing was originally premised on the maintenance of a paper records and the service of such paper tariff records, which is now obsolete because of the electronic filing requirements of Order No. 714. Accordingly, the Commission proposes eliminating the current filing requirements of section 341.4(f) and replacing them with an obligation of oil pipelines to serve Commission suspension orders on individual pipeline subscriber lists. This will eliminate the tariff filing for the suspension supplement, as well as subsequent filings an oil pipeline must make to remove a suspension supplement. The Commission estimates that this will eliminate approximately twelve filings each year.

5. Amendments to Tariffs

18. The Commission proposes further revisions to section 341.4 of its regulations to treat all amendments to pending tariffs, whether ministerial or substantive, in the same manner as they are treated for public utilities and natural gas companies. Section 341.4(e) of the Commission's regulations limits an oil pipeline from filing more than three “correction supplements” to correct “typographical or clerical errors” per tariff. In contrast, the Commission's regulations do not allow an oil pipeline to make non-ministerial tariff changes without filing to withdraw any pending proposal and making a new tariff filing.

19. In the electronic filing environment established by Order No. 714, the Commission does not believe that it should limit the number of times an oil pipeline may make corrections to a tariff record. Therefore, the Commission proposes to revise section 341.4 of its tariff to treat all amendments to pending tariff records, whether ministerial or substantive, the same to allow an oil pipeline to file to amend or to modify a tariff record at any time during the pendency of the Commission acting on such tariff record. In addition, the Commission proposes creating a tariff record amendment process that parallels the existing business process for amending pending statutory tariff filings under its public utility and natural gas programs.17Under this proposal, an oil pipeline will be able to keep its requested effective date from its original tariff record filing, while giving interested parties a full comment period to address any issues relating to a proposed amendment. An amendment will toll the notice period as provided in section 341.2(b) of the Commission's regulations, for the original filing, and establish a new date for final Commission action.

1718 CFR 35.17(b) and 18 CFR 154.205(b) (2012) (respectively).

6. Adoption

20. Section 341.6(a) provides an oil pipeline must file a tariff and “notify the Commission when there is: (1) A change in the legal name of the carrier; (2) a transfer of all of the carrier's properties; or (3) a change in ownership of only a portion of the carrier's property.” This filing must be made by the oil pipeline “as soon as possible but no later than [thirty] days following such occurrence.” This filing is commonly known as an “Adoption Notice.” Section 341.6(c) further provides that “when a carrier changes its legal name, or when ownership of all a carrier's properties is transferred, or when the ownership of a portion of a carrier's properties is transferred to another carrier, the adopting carrier must file and post an adoption notice.” In these instances, the adopting oil pipeline must make a tariff filing within thirty days transferring into its Commission tariff records, the rates that the adopting oil pipeline is adopting (filing to bring tariffs forward).

21. To eliminate unnecessary filings, the Commission proposes consolidating the Adoption Notice filing and the filing to integrate the tariff records of the adopting carrier. To implement this change, the Commission proposes modeling sections 341.6(a) on section 154.603 of the Commission's natural gas regulations. Section 154.603 provides that “[w]henever the tariff * * * of a natural gas company on file with the Commission is to be adopted by another company or person as a result of an acquisition, or merger * * * the succeeding company must file with the Commission, and post within 30 days after such succession, a tariff filing * * * bearing the name of the successor company.” The Commission estimates that this proposal will eliminate approximately fifteen Adoption Notice filings each year.

7. Implementation

22. If the Commission adopts the proposed changes to the types of filings discussed above, the Secretary of the Commission will issue a revised list of Type of Filing Codes.18

18See18 CFR 375.302(z) (2012). TheImplementation Guidedescribes the Type of Filing contents. The Type of Filing Code list is posted on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/filing_type.csv.

IV. Information Collection Statement

23. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.19Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)20requires each Federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability.21

195 CFR 1320 (2012).

2044 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (2012).

21OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) (2012) require that “Any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons.”

24. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments aresolicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques.

25. The Commission's estimate of the change in Public Reporting Burden and cost related to the proposed rule in Docket RM12-15-000 follow.

26. The proposed regulations will eliminate or reduce several filing requirements as obsolete and no longer necessary. The eliminated or reduced filings include the filing of Index of Tariffs, reduced number of adoption filings, eliminated suspension supplements, and reduced number of filings necessary to amend incorrect filings. Based upon a review of the filings made by interstate oil pipelines since eTariff was implemented in April 2010, the Commission estimates a reduction of 99 tariff filings and 1,082 burden hours per year, as shown in the table below.

22The cost figure is based on management analyst work at $38.50 per hour. We adjusted the $38.50 figure to account for benefits resulting in a loaded figure of $55 per hour ($38.5/0.704). We obtained wage and benefit information from Bureau of Labor Statistics information athttp://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.

RM12-15, FERC-550Reduction in

filings

Estimated hours

per filing

Total

hours

Total cost

reduction22

Revised 341.4, Amendments to tariff filings5011550$30,250Revised 341.6, Adoption of the tariff by a successor.15111659,075Elimination of 341.4(f) (Suspension Supplements)12111327,260Revised 341.9, Index of Tariffs221124213,310Total991,08959,895

27. The Commission proposes to revise Part 341's tariff posting requirements for interstate oil pipelines from paper to electronic format. There is no change in burden for the pipelines to maintain the status of their tariffs for public inspection, as that requirement is unchanged. The Commission recognizes that there will be a one-time increased burden involved in the initial implementation associated with purchasing software and updating Web sites to post their tariff electronically. We estimate a one-time additional cost of $250 per respondent for non-labor costs. Additionally we estimate a one-time hourly burden of 20 hours per respondent for updating the web sites for posting of the tariffs.

RM12-15, FERC-550Number of pipelines

with tariffs

Estimated

additional one-time burden per filer

Total

estimated

additional one-time burden

Estimated

additional

one-time non-labor hours cost per filer

Total

estimated

one-time

hourly burden

cost per filer

(hr.)(hr.)($)($)Revisions to 18 CFR Part 341167203,3402501,097

Information Collection Costs:The Commission seeks comments on the costs and burden to comply with these requirements.

23The $250 is an aggregate number. Some respondents will incur little to no expense in order to satisfy the proposals in this rulemaking as they already post their tariffs on their web sites and/or have software with that functionality.

Savings per year = $468 per respondent.24

24Based on an annual reduction of $59,895 divided by 128, the average number of respondents per year. The number of pipelines with tariffs is greater than the number of respondents because not all pipelines with tariffs make tariff filings every year.

25The cost figure is based on 5 hours of computer analyst work ($39.02/hour) and 15 hours of management analyst work ($38.50/hour) resulting in a total of $772.60. We adjusted the $772.60 figure to account for benefits resulting in a loaded figure of $1,097 ($772.60/0.704). We obtained wage and benefit information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (athttp://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htmand athttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

Burden hour savings per year after implementation year = 8.4 hours per respondent

Title:FERC-550, Oil Pipeline: Tariff Filing

Action:Proposed Revisions to the FERC-550.

OMB Control No:1902-0089.

Respondents:Public and non-public utilities.

Frequency of Responses:Initial implementation and ongoing reduction in burden.

Necessity of the Information:The proposals in this Proposed Rule would, if implemented, increase transparency to both shippers and the public, simplify some filings, reduce the regulatory burden placed on oil pipelines, and modernize Part 341 in accordance with the Commission's electronic systems.

Internal review:The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.

Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:DataClearance@ferc.gov,Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873]. Comments on the requirements of this rule may also be sent to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB atoira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0089, FERC-550 and the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in your submission.

V. Environmental Analysis

28. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.26The actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.27Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.

29. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires agencies to prepare certain statements, descriptions, and analyses of proposed rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.28Agencies are not required to make such an analysis if a rule would not have such an effect.

285 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).

30. The Commission does not believe that this proposed rule will have a significant impact on small entities, nor will it impose upon them any significant costs of compliance. The Commission identified 29 small entities as respondents to the requirements in the proposed rule.29As explained above, the changes to Part 341 of the Commission's regulations will only impose a small burden in the first year ($2,460 per respondent), and will result in net savings for other years ($3,369 per company). The Commission does not estimate that there are any other regulatory burdens associated with this final rule. Thus, the Commission certifies that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

29The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15 U.S.C. 632 (2012). The Small Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry Classification System defines a small oil pipeline company as one with less than 1,500 employees.See13 CFR Parts 121, 201 (2012).

VII. Comment Procedures

31. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 28, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-15-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

32. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov.The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

33. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

34. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

35. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in theFederal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

36. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email atferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room atpublic.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 341

Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By direction of the Commission.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 341, Chapter I, Title 18,Code of Federal Regulations,as follows.

(7)PostingorPostmeans making current, proposed and suspended tariffs available on a carrier's public Web site.

3. In § 341.2(a)(1), revise the third sentence in paragraph 341.2(a)(1), to read as follows:

§ 341.2Filing requirements.

(a) * * *

(1) * * * Such service shall be made in accordance with the requirements of § 385.2010 of this chapter.

§ 341.3[Amended]

4. In § 341.3 remove paragraph (c).

5. Section 341.4 is revised to read as follows:

§ 341.4Amendments of tariff filings.

A carrier may file to amend or modify a tariff contained in a tariff filing at any time during the pendency of the filing. Such filing will toll the notice period as provided in § 341.2(b) for the original filing, and establish a new date on which the entire filing will become effective, in the absence of Commission action, no earlier than 31 days from the date of the filing of the amendment or modification.

6. Section 341.5 is revised to read as follows:

§ 341.5Cancellation of Tariffs.

Carriers must cancel tariffs when the service or transportation movement is terminated. If the service in connection with the tariff is no longer in interstate commerce, the tariff publication must so state. Carrier must file such cancellations within 30 days of the termination of service.

7. Section 341.6 is revised to read as follows:

§ 341.6Adoption of the tariff by a successor.

Whenever the tariff(s) of a carrier on file with the Commission are to be adopted by another carrier as a result of an acquisition, merger, or name change, the succeeding company must file with the Commission, and post within 30 days after such succession, a tariff in the electronic format required by § 341.1 bearing the name of the successor company.

8. Section 341.7 is revised to read as follows:

§ 341.7Concurrences.

Concurrences must be shown in the carriers' tariff and maintained consistent with the requirements of Part 341 of this chapter.

9. Amend § 341.9 by:

a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, revise the first sentence ;

b. Adding paragraph (a)(5) ;

c. Removing paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f); and

d. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (b) and revising it.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 341.9Index of tariffs.

(a) Each carrier with more than two tariffs or concurrences must post on its public Web site a complete index of all effective tariffs to which it is a party, either as an initial, intermediate, or delivering carrier. * * *

(5)Product Shipped and Origin.Each index must identify, for each tariff, the product being shipped and the origin and destination points for that product.

(b)Updates.The index of tariffs must be updated within 90 days of any change to an effective tariff.

EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). This revision pertains to EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting provisions as promulgated on June 3, 2010. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521 by one of the following methods:

D.Hand Delivery:At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online atwww.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected throughwww.regulations.govor email. Thewww.regulations.govWeb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going throughwww.regulations.gov,your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:All documents in the electronic docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inwww.regulations.govor in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email attalley.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On October 12, 2011, DNREC submitted a proposed revision to the Delaware SIP. The revision is to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125—Requirements for Preconstruction Review. The amendments incorporate preconstruction permitting requirements for GHG sources consistent with federal requirements.

I. Background

On October 12, 2011, DNREC submitted a revision to EPA for approval into the Delaware SIP to establish appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources aresubject to Delaware's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Subsequent to that submittal, it was discovered that Delaware's proposed revision contained an error which would have inadvertently and incorrectly limited the circumstances under which a source could trigger PSD requirements for GHG emissions. Delaware initiated steps to undertake rulemaking action to correct the error, and on August 9, 2012, submitted a formal supplement to the October 12, 2011 SIP submittal. The supplement contained the corrected text of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125. Final approval of Delaware's October 12, 2011 SIP revision will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” (the Tailoring Rule) Final Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010), ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds are not subject to permitting requirements.1Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this revision into the Delaware SIP.

1The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program, which requires operating permits for existing sources. However, today's action does not affect Delaware's title V program.

Today's proposed action on the Delaware SIP generally relates to four federal rulemaking actions. The first rulemaking action is EPA's Tailoring Rule. The second rulemaking action is EPA's “Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,” Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call), 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). The third rulemaking action is EPA's “Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,” Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which serves as a companion rulemaking action to EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call. The fourth rulemaking action is the “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans” 75 FR 82536 (Narrowing Rule) (December 30, 2010). A summary of each of these rulemaking actions is provided below.

In the first rulemaking action, the Tailoring Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the second rulemaking action, the GHG SIP Call, EPA found that the EPA-approved PSD programs in 13 States (not including Delaware) were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they did not appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. For each of these States, EPA proposed to require the State (through a “SIP Call”) to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies. EPA proposed an expedited schedule for these States to submit their SIP revision, in light of the fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain GHG-emitting sources were subject to the PSD requirements and may not have been able to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. In the third rulemaking action, the GHG FIP, EPA issued a FIP to apply in any state that was unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that the state had authority to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. Because Delaware already had authority to regulate GHGs, Delaware is only seeking to revise its SIP to put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds are not subject to permitting requirements for sources of GHG. In the Narrowing Rule, EPA limited its approval of those states' programs which had the authority to regulate GHG's, but lacked a vehicle to limit applicability to the higher thresholds established by the Tailoring Rule.

For a detailed discussion of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent actions regarding GHG permitting, the relationship between the proposed Delaware SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings, as well as EPA's analysis of Delaware's SIP revision, refer to the Technical Support Document in the docket for this action which can be found atwww.regulations.gov(Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0521).

II. EPA's Analysis of Delaware's SIP Revision

On October 12, 2011, DNREC submitted a proposed revision to Delaware's SIP to EPA for approval. The revision is to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125—Requirements for Preconstruction Review.

On July 29, 2010, Delaware provided a letter to EPA with confirmation that the state not only had the authority to regulate GHG in its PSD and title V programs, but could also interpret the term “subject to regulation” consistent with the Tailoring Rule. Nevertheless, Delaware undertook rulemaking to explicitly incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds into their PSD program. Delaware's October 12, 2011, proposed SIP revision establishes thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Delaware's PSD program.

The changes to Delaware's PSD program regulations at 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 are substantively the same as the federal provisions amended in EPA's Tailoring Rule. As part of its review of the Delaware submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of Delaware's proposed revisions and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with the Tailoring Rule. The August 9, 2012 revision that was formally submitted as a supplement to the October 12, 2011 submittal addresses an error in the definition of “Subject to Regulation” at 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, section 1.9—Definitions. The definition as originally submitted would have inappropriately limited the circumstances under which a facility can trigger PSD review for its GHG emissions. The proposed revision to the definition submitted in the August 9, 2012 supplement appropriately mirrors the federal requirements. These changes to Delaware's regulations are also consistent with section 110 of the CAA because they are incorporating GHGs for regulation in the Delaware SIP.

III. Proposed Action

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's October 12, 2011, SIP revision (as amended by the August 9, 2012 supplement), relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Delaware's October 12, 2011, proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. EPA is soliciting public comments on our proposed approval of the revisions to the Delaware SIP. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submissionthat complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves the State's law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the State's law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed SIP revision pertaining to greenhouse gas permitting does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia for the purpose of establishing amendments to Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8—Ambient Air Quality Standards. In the Final Rules section of thisFederal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES:

Comments must be received in writing by November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608 by one of the following methods:

D.Hand Delivery:At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0608. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online atwww.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected throughwww.regulations.govor email. Thewww.regulations.govWeb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going throughwww.regulations.gov,your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:All documents in the electronic docket are listed in thewww.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inwww.regulations.govor in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email atkhadr.asrah@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of thisFederal Registerpublication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

EPA is proposing to determine that the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further proposing that, if EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0782 by one of the following methods:

Instructions:All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online atwww.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted throughwww.regulations.govor email.www.regulations.govis an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:The index to the docket for this action is available electronically atwww.regulations.govand in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Ungvarsky, (415) 972-3963, or by email atungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.

Table of ContentsI. What determination is EPA making?II. What is the background for this action?A. PM2.5NAAQSB. Designation of PM2.5Nonattainment AreasC. How does EPA make attainment determinations?III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?A. Monitoring Network and Data ConsiderationsB. Evaluation of Current AttainmentIV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5NAAQSB. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data PolicyV. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public CommentVI. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. What determination is EPA making?

EPA is proposing to determine that the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. Based on this determination, we are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the State of California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of this standard for this area for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.

II. What is the background for this action?A. PM2.5NAAQS

Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants (referredto as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5as the indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary1annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5(62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area.

1For a given air pollutant, “primary” national ambient air quality standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public health, and “secondary” standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section 109(b).

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the 1997 annual PM2.5standard at 15.0 μg/m3based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5concentrations, but with tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5Nonattainment Areas

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009). Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the San Francisco Bay Area2in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.3The boundaries for this area are described in 40 CFR 81.305.

2The San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5nonattainment area includes southern Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and the western part of Solano counties.

3With respect to the annual PM2.5NAAQS, this area is designated as “unclassifiable/attainment.”

Within three years of the effective date of designations, states with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements, provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14, 2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested that EPA make a determination that the San Francisco Bay Area4nonattainment area has attained the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS and determine that attainment-related SIP submittal requirements are not applicable for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. Today's proposal responds to the State's request.

4On December 8, 2011, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.

C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?

A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets the PM2.5NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5standard is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at each monitoring site within the area.5The PM2.524-hour average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data.

5The PM2.524-hour standard design value is the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS is met when the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

In the San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5nonattainment area, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency responsible for monitoring ambient air quality.6BAAQMD submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA. These plans describe the monitoring network operated by BAAQMD in the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area and discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.

6The BAAQMD is one of four monitoring agencies in California designated as a Primary Quality Assurance Organization.

Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that the area's network plans operated by BAAQMD meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to BAAQMD approving its annual network plans for years 2009, 2010, and 2011.7EPA also concluded8from its Technical System Audit of the BAAQMD Primary Quality Assurance Organization (conducted during the summer of 2009), that the ambient air monitoring network operated by BAAQMD currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5in the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area. BAAQMD annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured.9

There were 10 PM2.5SLAMS located throughout the San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5nonattainment area in calendar years 2009, 2010, and 2011. EPA defines specific monitoring site types and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and location of required monitors. Eight of the sites have a spatial scale of neighborhood scale,10and the monitoring objective is population exposure. Two of the sites (i.e., Oakland (AQS ID 06-001-0009) and San Rafael (AQS ID 06-041-0001)) have a spatial scale of middle scale,11and the monitoring objective is population exposure.12

10In this context, “neighborhood” spatial scale defines concentrations within some extended area of the city that has relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.

11In this context, “middle” spatial scale defines the concentration typical of areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions ranging from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.

Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable monitoring period collected at the monitoring sites in the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area and have determined that the data are complete except for the PM2.5data collected at the San Rafael monitoring site.13With respect to the San Rafael site, PM2.5monitoring began in the last quarter of 2009 and was complete for that one quarter. In 2010, valid samples were collected on only 72% of the scheduled sampling days at the San Rafael monitor during the third quarter of 2010 (July, August, and September) resulting in a data set for the third quarter that does not meet the completeness criterion of 75%. All other quarters of data collected at San Rafael in 2010, and all quarters in 2011 met data completeness requirements. Given that the BAAQMD operates more than the minimum number of PM2.5monitoring sites in the San Francisco Bay Area,14the overall completeness of data from all sites (other than the San Rafael site), and the limited nature of the incomplete data set from the San Rafael site during the low PM2.5concentration season, we believe that the data set compiled from the PM2.5monitoring network is sufficient for the purposes of determining whether the San Francisco Bay Area has attained the PM2.5NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.2(b).

13In March, 2012, a community group based in Marin County, California, brought to EPA's attention PM2.5data collected in Marin County that was not available in AQS. EPA has reviewed information associated with this monitoring. The monitoring was collected with private, non-Federal Reference Method/Federal Equivalent Method (FRM/FEM) monitors over approximately three months in both winter 2010/2011 and winter 2011/2012. EPA concludes that the monitoring does not meet 40 CFR part 50, appendix L or 40 CFR part 58, and are therefore not appropriate for regulatory use. EPA acknowledges the concerns raised by the community group over wood smoke impacts in sheltered inland valleys during the winter months. Information on additional steps BAAQMD is taking to address wood smoke impacts is described in BAAQMD's September 20, 2012 letter from Jean Roggenkamp, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to Amy Zimpfer, U.S. EPA Region IX.

14Under EPA monitoring regulations, the minimum number of PM2.5monitoring sites in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is two, but the BAAQMD operates six such monitoring sites within the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA portion of the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area, including the San Rafael site.

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment

EPA's evaluation of whether the San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data and takes into account the adequacy15of the PM2.5monitoring network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the network as discussed in the previous section of this document.

15Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.

Table 1 shows the PM2.5design values for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area monitors based on ambient air quality monitoring data for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-2011). The data show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was equal to or less than 35 μg/m3at the monitors.

Therefore, we are proposing to determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-2011, that the San Francisco Bay Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 indicate that the area continues to attain the standard.

Table 1—2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5Monitoring Sites and Design Values for the San Francisco Bay Area Nonattainment AreaMonitoring siteAQS Site

identification No.

98th Percentile (μg/m3)2009201020112009-2011 Design values

(μg/m3)

Livermore06-001-000730.726.527.028Oakland06-001-000924.721.728.025Concord06-013-000229.226.824.427San Rafael06-041-0001a34.1b31.025.0b30San Francisco06-075-000529.424.426.427Redwood City06-081-100128.024.824.226Gilroy06-085-000225.119.622.122San Jose06-085-000529.829.230.530Vallejo06-095-000433.522.831.029Santa Rosa06-097-000323.222.225.924aPM2.5monitoring at the San Rafael site began in the last quarter of 2009.bDoes not meet data completeness requirements.Source: Design Value Report, August 10, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS

In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007). In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006 PM2.5standard.SeeMemorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view “that the overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and appropriate guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In general, the EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in the framework of the 2007 PM2.5Implementation Rule are relevant to the statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS * * *.”Id.,page 1. With respect to the statutory provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5implementation, the guidance emphasized that “EPA outlined its interpretation of many of these provisions in the 2007 PM2.5Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory provisions, the EPA provided substantial general guidance for attainment plans for PM2.5in the preamble to the final the [sic] 2007 PM2.5Implementation Rule.”Id.,page 2. In keeping with the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect to the effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with respect to the implications of clean data determinations that it set forth in the preamble to the 1997 PM2.5standard and in the regulation that embodies this interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).16EPA has long applied this interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10 standard, and the lead standard.

16While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5standard, the statutory interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5standards.

B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and 172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has become known as its “Clean Data Policy” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.SeeMemorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5NAAQS.SeeMemorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (December 14, 2004).

The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D ofthe Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.17As explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines for RFP and attainment.

17This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.

CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs “shall provide for attainment of the [NAAQS].” EPA has interpreted this requirement as not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.”See alsoMemorandum from John Calcagni, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” (September 4, 1992), at page 6.

A component of the attainment plan specified under section 172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for “the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable” (RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration,seeGeneral Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer applies to areas that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation of such potential RACM measures that could advance attainment.18Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the statute requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Clubv.EPA,314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Sierra Clubv.EPA,294 F.3d 155, 162-163, D.C. Cir. 2002).See alsothe final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003).

18This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble,see57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions.See NRDCv.EPA,571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009);Sierra Clubv.EPA,294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment areas must require “reasonable further progress.” The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, by definition, the “reasonable further progress” provision under subpart 1 requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment “[has] no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).

CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas “shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or [EPA].” This contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”See57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard.

It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006 PM2.5standard based on three years of data, its obligation to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation action.

V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

EPA is proposing to determine that the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured, and certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 show that this area continues to attain the standard.

EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the requirements for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see40 CFR 51.918) and the 1997 fine particulate matter standards (see40 CFR 51.1004(c)). As described below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS.

Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 would remain nonattainment for this area until such time as EPA determines that California has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area to attainment.

If the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS, EPA proposes that the requirements for the area to submit anattainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS will remain suspended. If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in theFederal Register, that the area has violated the 2006 PM2.5NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the attainment planning requirements for the area would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address such requirements.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus, would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on matters related to access technology and enhanced database operations for video relay service (VRS) raised in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC, a VRS provider. In order for the Commission to be in a position to set new rates as it moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, it also seeks comment on a proposal by the Fund administrator, Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation rates.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before November 14, 2012. Reply comments are due on or before November 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Filers:Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email tofcc@bcpiweb.com.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,seetheSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this document.

This is a summary of the Bureau's Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Public Notice (VRS Reform and Rates Notice), document DA 12-1644, released October 15, 2012, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, seeking comments on access technologies and compensation rates for VRS. The full text of theVRS Reform and Rates Noticeand copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300, fax: (202) 488-5300, or Internet:www.bcpiweb.com. This document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (“PDF”) at:http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200et. seq.,this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission'sex parterules. Persons makingex partepresentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oralex partepresentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which theex partepresentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff duringex partemeetings are deemed to be writtenex partepresentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, writtenex partepresentations and memoranda summarizing oralex partepresentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission'sex parterules.

People with Disabilities:To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

Document DA 12-1644 does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

SynopsisBackground

1. In June 2010, the Commission began a comprehensive review of the rates, structure, and practices of the VRS program.Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program,Notice of Inquiry, (2010 VRS NOI), CG Docket No. 10-51, published at 75 FR 41863, July 19, 2010. The Commission's goal in beginning that review, and ever since then, has been to reform the VRS program, which for many years had been beset by waste, fraud, and abuse and by compensation rates that had become inflated well above actual cost. Since that time, the Commission has acted to improve the program so that it can continue to provide a valuable service to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers as efficiently as possible.

2. The Commission's actions over the past two years have saved the program approximately $300 million to date. Most significantly, in June 2010, at the same time the Commission issued the2010 VRS NOIasking questions about potential fundamental changes to the VRS program, the Commission cut the compensation rate for the bulk of VRS traffic by more than $1.00 per minute, the first substantial VRS rate reduction in six years. Stressing its “obligation to protect the integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect waste,” the Commission stated that it would no longer tolerate “the large discrepancy between actual costs and provider compensation” that had resulted from earlier VRS ratesetting orders. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order, (2010 TRS Rate Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 75 FR 49491, August 13, 2010.See alsoStructure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 VRS Rate NPRM), CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51, published at 76 FR 24442, May 2, 2011.

3. The Commission has taken significant further steps to protect the VRS program's integrity and increase its efficiency since that time. In April 2011, the Commission adopted additional wide-ranging measures to improve oversight of and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by VRS providers. The Commission required providers to submit detailed call records to justify their requests for compensation, instituted annual as well as unscheduled provider audits, banned providers from tying their employees' wages to the number of calls processed, and prohibited revenue-sharing arrangements between certificated, Fund-eligible service providers and unregulated companies. In July 2011, the Commission tightened the eligibility and certification requirements for VRS providers to ensure that only providers operating in compliance with the Commission's rules would be permitted to provide this service to the public. And in December 2011, the Commission proposed additional substantial reforms to the VRS market structure and the practices of providers. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing andSpeech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2011 VRS Reform FNPRM), CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, published at 77 FR 4948, February 1, 2012. These reforms were intended to ensure that the program continues to support services that offer functional equivalence to all eligible users and becomes as immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that could threaten its viability.

4. Document DA 12-1644 is the next step in these ongoing reform efforts. CGB, on delegated authority, seeks comment on matters raised in recent filings submitted by CSDVRS, LLC, a VRS provider. Moreover, in order for the Commission to be in a position to set new rates as it moves forward with the next phase of VRS reform, the Bureau also seeks comment in document DA 12-1644 on a proposal by the Fund administrator, Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates (RLSA), to modify VRS compensation rates.

Additional Comment on Structural Reform Options

5. As discussed in the2010 VRS NOI,VRS communications require the interaction of three separate yet interlinked components: VRS access technologies, video communication service, and relay service provided by American Sign Language (ASL)-fluent communications assistants (CAs). The Bureau now seeks additional comment on specific proposals to disaggregate these components. The Bureau emphasizes that neither the Commission nor CGB has decided to adopt any of these proposals; CGB is simply seeking input to help develop a more complete record to enable the Commission to better evaluate the various issues in this proceeding.

VRS Access Technology

6. As noted above, CSDVRS has submitted two structural reform proposals to the Commission. The first of these proposes that the Commission facilitate migration of all VRS access technologies to a standard, software based VRS access technology (“application”) that could be used on commonly available off-the-shelf hardware as a means of furthering the Commission's interoperability and portability goals. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek particular comment on the following related questions:

7. The Commission proposed to establish standards for iTRS Access Technology, including VRS Access Technology, in the2011 VRS Reform FNPRM.Would the process for establishing and maintaining standards discussed in the2011 VRS Reform FNPRMbe appropriate for developing an application or establishing standards for an application? Should the application or key components thereof be open source?

8. Should the Commission mandate use of a single application or allow development of multiple, interoperable applications? Who should be responsible for application development? For example, should the Commission develop, by contract, such an application? How should the developer of the application be compensated?

9. Should providers be able to continue to offer their own internally developed applications? If so, under what conditions? For example, should there be an interoperability testing process? How would such an interoperability testing process be structured?

10. Should the application be full executable, or a core executable or set of libraries (“core”) that can be customized by interested parties (e.g.,using published APIs), or both? If core, what key functions should this core contain, such as video encoding, video decoding and session signaling? If core, should there be a certification process before calls placed with the application are compensable? How should that process be structured? Who should be responsible for maintaining and updating applications?

11. What off-the-shelf hardware and operating system platforms should be supported? Should users be responsible for procuring their own off-the-shelf equipment, or should providers be involved in the acquisition and distribution of end user equipment to VRS users?

12. How should consumers be involved in the development, selection, certification and on-going enhancement of either the core or the application?

13. How would users obtain support for issues relating to the application or its use on their equipment (e.g.,network firewall issues, troubleshooting problems)?

14. What other approaches might be considered to select an application or applications for use in the VRS system? For example, should the Commission host a competition among existing VRS access applications and/or commercial standards-based off-the-shelf video conferencing applications? What would be the benefits and drawbacks of these or other alternate approaches?

15. How would a transition to a VRS system that relies exclusively on a common application be accomplished, and over what period of time?

16. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to adopt this proposal or one of the alternatives described above?

Enhanced iTRS Database Operations

17. CSDVRS also has proposed an industry structure in which all providers of ASL relay CA services would utilize an enhanced version of the TRS numbering directory to provide features such as user registration and validation, call routing, and usage accounting. In effect, this would separate the video communication service component of VRS from the ASL relay CA service component by providing the functions of the former from an enhanced database (“enhanced iTRS database”). The Bureau seeks comment on this proposal, and seek particular comment on the following related questions:

18. What functions and services should the enhanced iTRS database provide? Some possibilities include:

• Development and distribution of VRS access technology, such as a common application• User registration and validation (account and credential creation)• Per-call user verification (authentication)• TRS numbering directory functions• Usage accounting• Call routing○ To the user-chosen default or the per-call ASL relay CA service provider○ To/from other end users (i.e.,point-to-point calls)○ To/from the PSTN○ 911 call processing• Vertical features such as video mail and address book

19. How would ASL relay CA service providers interface with the enhanced iTRS database? Would each ASL relay CA service provider be required to establish its own internal routing system for distributing calls among its call centers, or should the enhanced iTRS database allow providers to specify provider-internal call routing rules?

20. CSDVRS' proposal appears to contemplate the existence of multiple video communication service providers. Is this necessary? How would the user or application choose among these providers? If the choice of the communication service provider is independent of the ASL relay CA service, based on what criteria or metrics would users or applications make that choice? Given that VRS providers currently compete primarily on quality of CA service, should the Commission contract for a singleprovider of the enhanced iTRS database functions, including video communication service, that allows users to access the ASL relay CA service of their choice? If the Commission does choose to contract for these functions, should there be a single contract or multiple contracts?

21. What changes in the Commission's rules would be necessary to implement such a structure?

Rate Proposals

22. As noted above, in the2010 TRS Rate Order,the Commission stated it would no longer tolerate the “large discrepancy between actual costs and provider compensation” that had resulted from earlier VRS ratesetting orders. Stressing its “obligation to protect the integrity of the Fund and to deter and detect waste,” the Commission also released the 2010 VRS NOI to consider, among other issues, “the most appropriate way to calculate and set future [VRS] rates.” Subsequently, in the2011 VRS FNPRM,the Commission proposed that, if a per-minute VRS rate was retained, it should be set based on the weighted average of actual per-minute provider costs for the most recently completed fund year. These steps have made clear the Commission's determination to review rate issues as part of its VRS reform proceeding and to obtain VRS rates that better reflect actual expenses of VRS providers.

23. Under § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E) and (H) of the Commission's rules, the Fund administrator is required to file the Fund payment formulas and revenue requirements for VRS with the Commission on May 1 of each year, to be effective the following July 1. However, on April 30, 2012, the Bureau waived the Fund administrator's obligation to file proposed rates and revenue requirements for VRS for the 2012-13 Fund year by May 1, 2012. In its order adopting rates for the 2012-13 Fund year, the Bureau indicated that the current interim rates for VRS would remain in place pending the Commission's completion of the current proceeding on reforming the structure and practices in the VRS market. In anticipation of the completion of the VRS reform proceeding, or of the current phase thereof, the Commission requested the Fund administrator, RLSA, to submit proposed VRS rates for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year. In document DA 12-1644, the Bureau seeks comment on RLSA's proposed VRS compensation rates, as well as on alternative rate methodologies, for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years.

24. The Bureau urges parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed rates to offer specific and detailed alternatives. Further, the Bureau expects parties to focus their comments, to the maximum extent practicable, on publicly available data and to make public the details of their views and arguments, including the specific dollar amounts that they believe the Commission should adopt for specific rates or cost elements.

RLSA's Rate Proposals

25. In the 2012 VRS Rate Filing, RLSA presents a proposal for determining how VRS providers are to be compensated by the Fund. Based on its analysis of the cost and demand data received from providers, the Fund administrator states that VRS providers' weighted average actual per-minute costs were $3.5740 for 2010 and $3.1900 for 2011, and that VRS providers' weighted average projected per-minute costs are $3.4313 for 2012. RLSA proposes that rates be based on an average of these three numbers, with appropriate adjustments to reflect rate tiers. Using this proposed methodology, RLSA proposes that cost based rates be phased in over a multi-year time period, with the rates restructured in two tiers instead of the current three tiers. Based on a three-year phase-in, RLSA proposes that rates be set initially for Tiers I and II (up to 500,000 minutes each month) at $5.2877 per minute, and for Tier III (over 500,000 minutes each month) at $4.5099 per minute. RLSA also presents data that reflects several of the categories of compensable and non-compensable costs. The Bureau invites comment on RLSA's proposed rate structure, proposed rates, and cost calculations, including its weighting of individual providers' costs. Commenters who advocate alternative rates to those proposed by RLSA are urged to discuss any resulting changes that will be necessary in the TRS revenue requirement and contribution factor if the rate(s) they advocate are adopted.

Open Ratemaking Issues

26. The Commission's determination regarding VRS compensation for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years may be affected by how the Commission resolves various ratemaking issues raised in the2011 VRS Reform FNPRM,the2011 VRS Rate NPRM,and the2010 VRS NOI.Therefore, the Bureau invites commenters to refresh the record of CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 10-51 on the following issues that may affect the establishment of a VRS rate for the remainder of the 2012-13 Fund year and subsequent years:

27. Should the following cost categories, which RLSA has included in its calculation of the proposed rates, be allowable as part of the cost basis for rates:

• Outreach (calculated by RLSA as $0.2741 (2010), $0.2606 (2011), and 0.2594 (2012) per minute); and

• Research and development (calculated by RLSA as $0.0486 (2010), $0.0542 (2011), and $0.0523 (2012) per minute)?

28. Should the Commission continue to limit the kinds and amount of capital costs that are allowed to be recovered? Thus, RLSA's proposed rate would allow an 11.25% return on invested capital, an element which has long been used as the basis for calculating TRS rates, as well as other common carrier rates, and which previously has been found to address adequately the recovery of interest and principal payments on debt, income taxes, and profits. RLSA calculates the weighted-average-per-minute return on investment, with allowance for taxes, to be $0.0949 per minute in 2010, $0.0778 per minute in 2011, and $0.0594 per minute (projected) in 2012. The Bureau invites commenters to refresh the record on the appropriate treatment of capital costs, rate of return, and related issues. Parties that advocate a particular alternative for treatment of capital costs should specify the type of investment on which they believe providers should be authorized to recover a return, the percentage return that they believe is appropriate in light of current market conditions, an estimate of the dollar amount that their proposed capital cost element would add to proposed VRS rates, and the specific reasons why investment and return should be so defined for purposes of Fund-compensated VRS.

29. Should the Commission retain, modify, or eliminate the current tiered VRS rate structure?

30. Should there be a phase-in of the new VRS compensation rate or rates? How long should such a phase-in period last and how should rates be set during such an initial period? For example, should the Commission establish a three-year phase-in period, as RLSA suggests, with equal yearly adjustments to reach the new rate?

31. How long should the new rate remain in effect? In the2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order,the Commission determined that VRS and IP Relay compensation rates should be set for athree-year period, subject to certain adjustments. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, (2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order), CG Docket No. 03-123, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008. In the2010 TRS Rate Order,the Commission again adopted a three-year rate for IP Relay, but it adopted a one-year interim rate for VRS. That interim VRS rate, however, was extended in 2011 and 2012. Should the new VRS rate likewise be instituted for a three-year period, or a different period?

32. As noted above, parties that disagree with RLSA's proposed cost categories or rate tiers, or have views on the timing and duration of the rate, should offer specific and detailed alternatives and should focus their comments, to the maximum extent practicable, on data, views, and arguments that can be made publicly available, including the specific dollar amounts and percentages.

The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC,OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOVor fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Forest Service

Title:Special Use Administration.

OMB Control Number:0596-0082.

Summary of Collection:Several statutes authorize the Forest Service (FS) to issue and administer authorizations for use and occupancy of National Forest System (NFS) lands and require the collection of information from the public for those purposes including Title 5 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, Pub. L. 94-579), the Organic Administration Act of 1897, (16 U.S.C. 551); the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act (16 U.S.C. 497b); section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185); the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA, 16 U.S.C. 532-538); section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act (16 U.S.C. 480d); the Act of May 20, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460/-6d); and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814). Forest Service regulations implementing these authorities, found at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 251, Subpart B (36 CFR 251, Subpart B), contain information collection requirements, including submission of applications, execution of forms, and imposition of terms and conditions that entail information collection requirements, such as the requirement to submit annual financial information; to prepare and update an operating plan; to prepare and update a maintenance plan; and to submit compliance reports and information updates.

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are authorized under their own various statutes to collect information using the SF-299.

Need and Use of the Information:The information collected is evaluated by the FS and DOI to ensure that authorized uses of NFS lands are in the public interest and are compatible with each Department's agency missions. The information helps each agency identify environmental and social impacts of special uses for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and program administration. There are six categories of information collected: (1) Information required from proponents and applicants to evaluate proposals and applications to use or occupy NFS lands; (2) information required from applicants to complete special use authorizations; (3) annual financial information required from holders to determine land use fees; (4) information required from holders to prepare and update operating plans; (5) information required from holders to prepare and update maintenance plans; and (6) information required from holders to complete compliance reports and information updates.

Description of Respondents:Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collectiontechniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments regarding this information collection received by November 28, 2012 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOVor fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Farm Service Agency

Title:Measurement Service Records

OMB Control Number:0560-0260

Summary of Collection:This collection of information is authorized by 7 CFR Part 718 and described in FSA Handbook 2-CP. If a producer requests measurement services, it becomes necessary for the producer to provide certain information which is collected on the FSA-409 L, Land Measurement Service or 409 B, Commodity Measurement Service. The collection of this information is necessary to fulfill the producer's request for measurement services. Producers may request acreage or production measurement services.

Need and Use of the Information:The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will collect the following information that the producer is required to provide on the FSA-409 L and FSA 409 B: farm serial number, program year, farm location, contact person, and type of service request (acreage or production). The collected information is used to create a record of measurement service requests and cost to the producer.

The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOVor fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Rural Business Service

Title:7 CFR Part 4287-B, Servicing Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans.

OMB Control Number:0570-0016.

Summary of Collection:The Business and Industry (B&I) program was legislated in 1972 under Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (the Act). The purpose of the B&I program, as authorized by the Act, is to improve economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement and control. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure through the guaranteeing of quality loans, which will provide lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the Rural Business Service (RBS) through Rural Development State and sub-State offices serving each State. RBS will collect information using various forms from the lender and the borrower. This information is vital for making prudent financial decisions.

Need and Use of the Information:RBS will collect information to monitor the guaranteed loan portfolio to ensure that the lenders are adequately servicing the loans. RBS through its respective Business Programs Divisions in Washington, DC and its 47 State Offices throughout the United States will be the primary users of the information collected. If the information is not collected, RBS would not be able to make prudent credit decisions nor would the Agency be able to effectively monitor the lender's servicing activities and thus minimize losses under the program.

Description of Respondents:Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government.

On April 10, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in theFederal Registera notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on solid fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (ammonium nitrate) from the Russian Federation (Russia) for the period of review (POR) of May 2, 2011, through March 31, 2012.1The Department received timely-filed requests from JSC Acron (Acron) and MCC EuroChem (EuroChem) (the respondents) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Russia. On May 29, 2012, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Russia for Acron and EuroChem.2On the same date, we: (1) Issued the antidumping questionnaire to these companies; and (2) requested information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on imports of subject merchandise from these respondents during the POR, in accordance with our practice. In June 2012, we received the requested CBP information, which showed that neither Acron nor EuroChem had entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On June 5, 2012, we placed a memorandum on the administrative record of this case stating that our review of the CBP database showed no POR entries of subject merchandise by the respondents.3We released the results of our CBP data query to the respondents and CF Industries, Inc. and El Dorado Chemical Company (collectively, the petitioners). We received no comments on the CBP data.

On June 20, 2012, Acron submitted its response to section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire, which indicated that Acron had a shipment of subject merchandise to the United States in March 2012; however, the entry documentation submitted with this response showed that the entry associated with this shipment was not made until after the end of the POR.SeeAcron's June 20, 2012, response at Exhibits 1 and 19.

On June 22, 2012, EuroChem submitted a partial response to section A of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, which stated that EuroChem also had a shipment of subject merchandise to the United States in March 2012. Unlike Acron, however, EuroChem provided a CBP 7501 form indicating that the entry associated with this shipment occurred on March 26, 2012.SeeEuroChem's June 22, 2012, submission at Exhibit 2. Because this information was not consistent with the underlying CBP data, on June 25, 2012, we queried the CBP database as to the status of the particular entry in question. According to the CBP database, although EuroChem submitted its entry documentation on March 26, 2012, the entry was not accepted by CBP as entered until after the end of the POR.

Because neither respondent had an entry of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR, on June 28, 2012, the Department placed a memorandum on the record notifying interested parties of its intent to rescind this administrative review.4We invited parties to comment on our Intent to Rescind Memo. On July 9, 2012, we received comments from the respondents, and on July 16, 2012, we received rebuttal comments from the petitioners.

On August 24, 2012, we placed a memorandum on the record regarding EuroChem's entry date, to which EuroChem responded on September 4, 2012.

Rescission of Review

It is the Department's practice to rescind an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR subject to the antidumping duty order and for which liquidation is suspended.5At the end of the administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the assessment rate computed for the review period.See19 CFR 351.212(b)(l). Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment rate. As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice, we find that neither respondent made entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Russia pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

All issues raised in by parties to this administrative review in their comments are addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via IA ACCESS in the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of the main Department of Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web athttp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/.The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Written comments must be submitted on or before December 31, 2012 December 28, 2012.

Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dwight Trueblood, (603) 862-3580 orDwight.Trueblood@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Science Collaborative was created in 2009 to put Reserve-based science to work for coastal communities coping with the impacts of land use change, pollution, and habitat degradation in the context of a changing climate. The program operates on the belief that for science to be applied to solve coastal management problems, the people who need to use the science must be involved in its generation.

The projects funded by the NERRS Science Collaborative are designed to bring the intended users of the science into the research process so that their perspectives can inform problem definition, research design and implementation, and ultimately, application of the project results. This is what is meant by “collaboration,” and it is the program's goal to use this process to ensure that the good science happening in and around the Reserves gets put to good use.

To help evaluate the efficacy of the NERRS Science Collaborative, NOAA is conducting a survey of the NERRS staff located in the 28 Reserves around the country to solicit their perspective about the program and how it has been implemented.

II. Method of Collection

Respondents will be surveyed electronically and the submission of results will be online. If requested, a paper copy of the survey will be provided to the survey respondents.

III. Data

OMB Control Number:None.

Form Number:None.

Type of Review:Regular submission (request for a new information collection).

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:$0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The subject EFP would allow a commercial fishing vessel to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

•Email: nero.efp@noaa.gov.Include in the subject line “Comments on REDNET EFP.”

The School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth (SMAST), submitted a complete EFP application on September 5, 2012, to conduct a redfish trawl codend selectivity experiment. This is the third of six components for “REDNET: A Network to Redevelop a Sustainable Redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) Trawl Fishery in the Gulf of Maine”, which is funded by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC) Cooperative Research Program. The overall objective of REDNET is to develop gear type(s), seasons, and/or area combinations to efficiently harvest the redfish resource in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) to maximize the long-term benefits while minimizing negative impacts, thereby providing a means to achieve the annual catch limit (ACL) for a rebuilt, but largely inaccessible, redfish resource. The REDNET project includes the following components: (1) Network development; (2) baseline catch and bycatch evaluation; (3) codend selectivity; (4) conservationengineering and bycatch reduction; (5) process and marketing; and (6) outreach and implementation. Components one and two have been completed.

REDNET investigators were issued an EFP in support of component two, which authorized the use of a 4.5-in (11.4-cm) mesh codend to establish a baseline for target catch and bycatch in a targeted redfish fishery (see the Notice and Request for Comments from March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12716)). This EFP, which would be in support of component three of the project, would enable investigators to evaluate different codend mesh sizes in an effort to identify the optimal mesh size to selectively harvest legal-size redfish, as well as perform catch sampling activities. To execute the study, the participating vessel would need to be exempt from the following FMP regulations: NE multispecies minimum fish size for redfish specified at § 648.83(a); and minimum mesh size of 6.5 in (16.6 cm) for multispecies vessels fishing in the GOM specified at § 648.80(a)(3)(i). In addition, vessels would be exempt from the following regulations for all remaining large-mesh and small-mesh groundfish species, for sampling purposes only: Minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; species quota closures; possession of prohibited groundfish species; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions. All non-compliant fish would be discarded as soon as practicable following data collection. No fish below the minimum size would be landed.

Tows would be made using the trouser trawl method which consists of a regular trawl's front end (including sweep, fishing line and headline) and a trouser section, which leads to two separate side-by-side codends. The applicants propose to assess codend selectivity by testing three codend mesh sizes. The test codend would use mesh sizes of either 4.5 in (11.4 cm), 5.5 in (14.0 cm), or 6.5 in (16.6 cm), and the control codend would use mesh sizes 2 in (5.1 cm) to 2.25 in (5.7 cm). The test and control codends would be switched regularly between port and starboard to reduce possible side effects, rather than keeping the test codend on the same side of the vessel for all tows.

The vessel would conduct sea trials from early November 2012 to April 30, 2013, with a total of 18 sea-days (three 6-day trips including steaming time). The vessel expects to make seven tows on each of the 12 actual fishing days. The research activity would occur in the middle of the GOM, outside of closed areas, on known redfish concentrations, in statistical areas 513, 514, 515, 521, and 522. The trawl net would be towed at typical fishing speed of approximately 3.2 kts, and the duration of each tow would depend primarily on the amount of fish in the net, rather than time. Acoustic gear monitoring devices would be used during trials to measure the performance of the gear and ensure constant geometry of the trawl's front end.

SMAST/Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) technical staff, students, and/or qualified at-sea monitors contracted by SMAST/DMF would be on board the vessel for each trip and would document all catch and by catch encountered following NE Fishery Observer Program protocols. About 70 to 100 fish per codend per tow would be measured for both redfish and/or other groundfish species. Sampling work would occur during normal fishing operations and the exemptions for this EFP, if authorized, would not be expected to change vessel fishing behavior. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this EFP would cause any impact to the physical environment/essential fish habitat, non-sampled species, or protected resources. All marine mammal and turtle interactions would be noted and released, and all corals would be noted and samples kept for further identification and assessment. Codend and control catch data would be analyzed using established methods proposed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas in their Manual of Methods of Measuring the Selectivity of Towed Fishing Gears.

All catch of stocks allocated to sectors by the vessel would be deducted from the sector's annual catch entitlement for each NE multispecies stock, including redfish. Specifically, NMFS would apply the sector assumed discard rate to fishing trips by the vessel participating under this EFP, whether the recorded discard rates from the experimental fishing are higher or lower than the assumed discard rate of the sector. The participating vessel would be required to comply with all other applicable requirements and restrictions specified at 50 CFR part 648, unless specifically exempted in this EFP.

If approved, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the course of research. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further public notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impacts of the initially approved EFP request.

In accordance with NAO Administrative Order 216-6, a Categorical Exclusion or other appropriate National Environmental Policy Act document would be completed prior to the issuance of the EFP. Further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. After publication of this document in theFederal Register, the EFP, if approved, may become effective following the public comment period.

The Plan Teams will compile and review the annual Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, including the Economic Report, the Ecosystems Consideration Chapter, the stock assessments for BSAI and GOA groundfishes, and recommend final groundfish harvest specifications for 2013/14.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted athttp://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

Members of the Habitat and Environmental Protection AP will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on November 14, 2012 and from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon on November 15, 2012. Topics to be addressed at the meeting include: a member workshop on developing the South Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem Atlas and Digital Dashboard, including the new online Ecospecies System; species research and habitat mapping associated with deepwater marine protected areas; deepwater habitat complexes associated with Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (CHAPC) extension proposals; a review of a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Atlantic Councils on deepwater coral ecosystem conservation; a review of other regional partner activities supporting the regional move to ecosystem-based management; and consideration of updates to essential fish habitat policy statements as needed. The AP will provide recommendations to the Council and address other business as needed.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (seeADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

Note:

The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research publishes this notice to solicit applications and nominations of persons with appropriate education, interest, and/or experience to become a member of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board. The purpose of the Board is to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters pertaining to ocean exploration including: The identification of priority areas that warrant exploration; the development and enhancement of technologies for exploring the oceans; managing the data and information; and disseminating the results. The Board will also provide advice on the relevance of the program with regard to the NOAA Strategic Plan, the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, and other relevant guidance documents.

DATES:

Application materials should be sent to the address, email, or fax specified and must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on December 28, 2012.

NOAA's Ocean Exploration Program (OE) is part of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. The mission of OE is to increase the Nation's understanding of the world's largely unknown ocean through interdisciplinary expeditions and projects to investigate unknown and poorly known ocean areas and phenomena. Specific goals include:

(1) Mapping and characterizing physical, chemical, and biological oceanenvironments, as well as submerged cultural history;

(2) Investigating ocean dynamics and interactions in new places and at new scales;

(3) Developing new ocean sensors and systems to increase the pace and efficiency of ocean exploration; and

(4) Disseminating information to a broad spectrum of users through formal and informal education and outreach programs.

For more information on the Ocean Exploration Program please visit the Web sites:http://Oceanexplorer.noaa.govandhttp://explore.noaa.gov.

This notice solicits applications for membership on the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board. The purpose of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Board (the Board) is to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Under Secretary), who is also the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on matters pertaining to ocean exploration including: The identification of priority areas that warrant exploration; the development and enhancement of technologies for exploring the oceans; managing the data and information; and disseminating the results. The Board will also provide advice on the relevance of the program with regard to the NOAA Strategic Plan, the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, and other relevant guidance documents. Authority to Which the Committee Reports: The Board will report to the Under Secretary, as directed by Section 12005 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331et seq.) part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3405). The Board shall function solely as an advisory body in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., with the exception of section 14.

Description of Duties:The Board shall:

a. Advise the Under Secretary on all aspects of ocean exploration including areas, features, and phenomena that warrant exploration; and other areas of program operation, including development and enhancement of technologies for exploring the ocean, managing ocean exploration data and information, and disseminating the results to the public, scientists, and educators;

b. Assist the program in the development of a 5-year strategic plan for the fields of ocean, marine, and Great Lakes science, exploration, and discovery, as well as making recommendations to NOAA on the evolution of the plan based on results and achievements;

c. Annually review the quality and effectiveness of the proposal review process established under Section 12003(a)(4); and

d. Provide other assistance and advice as requested by the Under Secretary.

Points of View:The Board will consist of approximately ten members including a Chair and Co-chair, designated by the Under Secretary in accordance with FACA requirements. Consideration will be given to candidates who are experts in fields relevant to ocean exploration, including ocean scientists, engineers and technical experts, educators, social scientists, and communications experts. Membership will be open to all individuals who have degrees, professional qualifications, scientific credentials, national reputations, international reputations, or relevant experience that will enable them to provide expert advice concerning the Ocean Exploration Program's roles within the context of NOAA's ocean missions and policies. Members will be appointed for 3-year terms, renewable once, and serve at the discretion of the Under Secretary. The Chair and Co-chair will serve 3-year terms renewable once. Initial appointments will include: Four members serving an initial 3-year term, three members serving an initial 4-year term and three members serving an initial 5-year term. All renewals will be 3-year terms. If a member resigns before the end of his or her first term, the vacancy appointment shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term, and shall be renewable twice if the unexpired term is less than one year.

Members will be appointed as special government employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in performing such duties but will not be reimbursed for their time.

As a Federal Advisory Committee the Board's membership is required to be balanced in terms of viewpoints represented and the functions to be performed as well as including the interests of geographic regions of the country and the diverse sectors of our society.

The Board will meet two times each year, exclusive of subcommittee, task force, and working group meetings.

Nominations:Nominations must provide: (1) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information; (2) the nominee's area(s) of expertise; and (3) a short description of his/her qualifications relative to the kinds of advice being solicited. Inclusion of a (maximum length 4 pages) resume or curriculum vitae is recommended, but not required.

Applications:An application is required to be considered for Board membership. To apply, submit a current resume (maximum length 4 pages) as indicated in theADDRESSESsection that includes: (1) The applicant's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information (mailing address, email, telephones, fax); (2) the nominee's area(s) of expertise; and (3) a short description of his/her qualifications relative to the kinds of advice being solicited. A cover letter stating their interest in serving on the Board and highlighting specific areas of expertise relevant to the purpose of the Board is required.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES:

Written comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

•Email: InformationCollection@uspto.gov. Include “0651-0024 comment” in the subject line of the message.

Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email toRaul.Tamayo@uspto.gov.Additional information about this collection is also available athttp://www.reginfo.govunder “Information Collection Review.”

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Abstract

Patent applications that contain nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosures must include a copy of the sequence listing in accordance with the requirements in 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. The rules of practice require applicants to submit these sequence listings in a standard international format that is consistent with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.25 (1998). Applicants may submit sequence listings for both U.S. and international patent applications.

The USPTO uses the sequence listings during the examination process to determine the patentability of the associated patent application. Sequence listings are also disclosed as part of the published patent application or issued patent. Sequence listings that are extremely long (files larger than 600K or approximately 300 printed pages) are published only in electronic form and are available to the public on the USPTO sequence data Web page(http://seqdata.uspto.gov) as an ASCII text file.

The sequence listing required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) for U.S. patent applications may be submitted on paper, compact disc (CD), or through EFS-Web, the USPTO's online filing system. Sequence listings for international applications may be submitted on paper or through EFS-Web only, though sequence listings that are too large to be filed electronically through EFS-Web may be submitted on a separate CD. Applicants may use EFS-Web to file a sequence listing online with a patent application or subsequent to a previously filed application.

Under 37 CFR 1.821(e)-(f), applicants must also submit a copy of the sequence listing in “computer readable form” (CRF) with a statement indicating that the CRF copy of the sequence listing is identical to the paper or CD copy required by 1.821(c). Applicants may submit the CRF copy of the sequence listing to the USPTO on CD or other acceptable media as provided in 37 CFR 1.824. Sequence listings that are submitted online through EFS-Web in the proper text format do not require a separate CRF copy or the associated statement.

If the CRF sequence listing in a new application is identical to the CRF sequence listing of another application that the applicant already has on file at the USPTO, 37 CFR 1.821(e) permits the applicant to refer to the CRF listing in the other application rather than having to submit a duplicate copy of the CRF listing for the new application. In such a case, the applicant may submit a letter identifying the application and CRF sequence listing that is already on file and stating that the sequence listing submitted in the new application is identical to the CRF copy already filed with the previous application. The USPTO provides a form, Request for Transfer of a Computer Readable Form Under 37 CFR 1.821(e) (PTO/SB/93), in order to assist customers in submitting this statement.

This information collection contains the sequence listings that are submitted with biotechnology patent applications. Information pertaining to the filing of the initial patent application itself is collected under OMB Control Number 0651-0032, and international applications submitted under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) are covered under OMB Control Number 0651-0021.

II. Method of Collection

By mail, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.

III. Data

OMB Number:0651-0024.

Form Number(s):PTO/SB/93.

Type of Review:Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public:Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:25,250 responses per year. The USPTO estimates that approximately 27% of these responses will be from small entities.

Estimated Time per Response:The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately six minutes (0.10 hours) to six hours (6.0 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form or sequence listing, and submit it to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:138,225 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:$22,590,450. The USPTO estimates that a sequence listing will take approximately five hours of paraprofessional time at an estimated rate of $122 per hour and one hour of attorney time at $371 per hour, for a weighted average rate of $163.50 per hour for preparing a sequence listing. The USPTO expects that the Request for Transfer of a CRF will be prepared by a paraprofessional at an estimated rate of $122 per hour. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for this collection will be approximately $22,590,450 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:$2,542,350. This collection has annual (non-hour) costs in the form of fees and postage costs. The USPTO provides free software for creating and validating the format of sequence listings prior to submission.

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(G), the USPTO only charges a fee for submitting a sequence listing as part of a U.S. application or as part of an international application entering the U.S. national stage if the sequence listing (i) is not filed via EFS-Web or not filed on an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.821(c) or (e), and (ii) causes the application toexceed 100 pages. (See 37 CFR 1.52(f).) Under 37 CFR 1.16(s) and 1.492(j) for U.S. applications and international applications entering the U.S. national stage, respectively, if the application, including the sequence listings filed on paper or on a non-compliant electronic medium, exceeds 100 pages, the application size fee is $320 (or $160 for small entities) for each additional 50 pages or fraction thereof. The USPTO estimates that approximately 250 applications from large entities with long sequence listings filed on paper or on a non-compliant electronic medium will incur an average application size fee of $960, and approximately 200 applications from small entities with long sequence listings filed on paper or on a non-compliant electronic medium will incur an average application size fee of $480, for a total of $336,000 per year.

As a Receiving Office, the USPTO collects the international filing fee for each international application it receives. The basic international filing fee only covers the first 30 pages of the international application. As a result, a $16 fee per page is added to the international filing fee for each page over 30 pages of an international application including a sequence listing filed on paper or in PDF format. No page fees are triggered by sequence listings that are submitted via EFS-Web in the proper text format. The average length of a sequence listing filed on paper or in PDF format in an international application is 150 pages, which would carry an additional fee of $2,400 if the international application were already at least 30 pages long without the listing. The USPTO estimates that approximately 900 of the 8,500 sequence listings filed per year on paper or in PDF format will be for international applications, for a total of $2,160,000 per year in page fees. Therefore, this collection has a total of $2,496,000 in fees per year.

Customers may incur postage costs when submitting a sequence listing to the USPTO by mail. Mailed submissions may include the sequence listing on either paper or CD, the CRF copy of the listing on CD, and a transmittal letter containing the required identifying information. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a paper or CD sequence listing submission will be $5.15 and that 9,000 sequence listings will be mailed to the USPTO per year, for a total postage cost of $46,350 per year.

The total annual (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of fees and postage costs is estimated to be $2,542,350 per year.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The CFTC announces a meeting of its Global Markets Advisory Committee (“GMAC”).

DATES:

The meeting will be held on November 7, 2012, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by October 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be submitted to: Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, attention: Office of the Secretary. Please use the title “Global Markets Advisory Committee” in any written statement you may submit. Any statements submitted in connection with the committee meeting will be made available to the public.

This meeting is being held with less than fifteen days notice so that the Committee may obtain the important views of international regulators, futures industry professionals, and market participants on cross-border issues related to OTC derivatives reform implementation. There will be two panels: the first comprised of regulators from around the globe and the second comprised of the GMAC members.

The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting by telephone may do so by calling a toll-free telephone line to contact to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name and affiliation. Additionally, a video recording of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's Web site. The call-in information, along with any conference and/or access codes for callers outside of the US will be posted on the CFTC Web site prior to the meeting. Domestic callers can dial 866-844-9416 and use the conference pass code “CFTC.” All written submissions provided to the CFTC in any form will also be published on the Web site of the CFTC.

Instructions:All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for thisFederal Registerdocument. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.govas they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in theFederal Registerand are available from the address inFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The Department of the Army proposes to amend one system in records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Written requests must include this system of records notice name and number, be in writing, signed, and for verification purposes provide evidence of the requester's identity such as a copy of a photo ID or passport or similar document bearing the requesters signature.

Requests for access must include this system of records notice name and number, be in writing, signed, and for verification purposes provide evidence of the requester's identity such as a copy of a photo ID or passport or similar document bearing the requesters signature.

Additionally for DoDEA records: If a parent or legal guardian is requesting records pertaining to his or her minor child or ward, he/she must also provide evidence of that relationship. The parent may provide one of the following: A copy of the child's school enrollment form signed by the parent, a copy of a divorce decree or travel order that includes the child's name, an order of guardianship, or a declaration stating that he/she is the parent or legal guardian of the minor or incapacitated child.”

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501et seq.), ED is proposing a revision to an existing information collection.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal athttp://www.regulations.govby selecting Docket ID number ED-2012-ICCD-0045 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E117, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection:Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems.

Abstract:This package requests clearance to collect data from districts, teachers, and principals for a study of a performance evaluation system for principals and teachers. The study will provide important implementation and impact information on a package of performance evaluation system components that reflects current federal policy. Study findings will be presented in two reports, one scheduled for release in Spring 2015 and the other in Summer 2016.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501et seq.), ED is proposing a new FRSS generic clearance.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal athttp://www.regulations.govby selecting Docket ID number ED-2012-ICCD-0046 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E117, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection:Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) 105: Condition of Public School Facilities.

OMB Control Number:1850-0733.

Type of Review:Generic information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public:State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:4,308.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours:1,052.

Abstract:The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education (ED), requestsOMB approval under the NCES system clearance for the Quick Response Information System (QRIS) (OMB #1850-0733) to conduct data collection for the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) survey #105 on the condition of public school facilities. Congress has appropriated funds for NCES to conduct an FRSS survey on the condition of public school facilities, with a First Look report on the results to be released in late 2013. FRSS previously conducted a survey on this topic in 1999. The 2012-13 FRSS survey will cover many of the same topics as the 1999 survey, but will use a revised questionnaire. The current survey reflects lessons learned from the 1999 survey, topics and issues identified through literature review, with modifications based on two rounds of feasibility calls and two rounds of pretest calls (OMB# 1850-0803) with public school district personnel most knowledgeable about school facilities. As was done in 1999, schools will be sampled, but surveys will be sent to districts, where facilities personnel and records are located. Changes to questionnaires were made based on the feedback received from pretests. A revised questionnaire is being submitted with this request for OMB clearance.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) was established under section 807 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 849. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in theFederal Register. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements during the public comment period, please register no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 by email at:HTAC@nrel.gov.An early confirmation of attendance will help to facilitate access to the building more quickly. Entry to the building will be restricted to those who have confirmed their attendance in advance. Please provide your name, organization, citizenship, and contact information, and indicate whether you want to make an oral statement. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government issued identification.

Public Participation:The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who would like to attend must register no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, by email at:HTAC@nrel.gov.An early confirmation of attendance will help to facilitate access to the building more quickly. Entry to the building will be restricted to those who have confirmed their attendance in advance. Please provide your name, organization, citizenship, and contact information. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government-issued identification. Those wishing to make a public comment are required to register. The public comment period will take place between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. on November 15, 2012. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but will not exceed 5 minutes. Those not able to attend the meeting or have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement by email to:HTAC@nrel.gov.

Minutes:The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review at the following Web site:http://hydrogen.energy.gov.

Take notice that on October 12, 2012, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore), 1110 Forrest Avenue, Dover, Delaware 19904, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and operate certain new compression facilities within existing property at Eastern Shore's Daleville Compression Station in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Eastern Shore states that the proposed project will provide 17,500 dekatherms per day of firm capacity to two existing customers, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

Any questions concerning this application may be directed to William B. Zipf, Vice-President, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, 1110 Forrest Avenue, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19904, by telephone at (302) 736-7624, by facsimile at (302) 734-6745, or by email atwzipf@esng.com.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on October 16, 2012, Energy Corporation of America and Eastern American Energy Corporation (collectively, ECA), and First ECA Midstream LLC (First ECA Midstream), 501 56th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304, jointly filed in Docket No. CP13-2-000, an application requesting: (1) Authorization, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon the limited jurisdiction certificate issued to ECA on March 25, 2004 in Docket No. CP03-355-000; and (2) issuance, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, of a limited jurisdiction certificate to First ECA Midstream to allow it to continue operating certain gathering facilities located in West Virginia acquired by First ECA Midstream from ECA (Line 8000 System) in the same manner as ECA has operated the facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

The applicants explain that First ECA Midstream has acquired the Line 8000 System from ECA. ECA's limited jurisdiction certificate allowed gas volumes to be received into the Line 8000 System from Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in order to provide service to the extent local production gathered by the system became insufficient to meet customers' needs. The applicants state that First ECA, as the new owner and operator of the Line 8000 System, requires a limited jurisdiction certificate for the same purpose, and they request an order on or before December 1, 2012 to enable First ECA Midstream to receive gas from Columbia if necessary during the winter season.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on October 19, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2012) and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e) (2011), Dominion Resources Services, Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent failed to properly allocate certain charges for Day-Ahead Operating Reserves in a just and reasonable manner. As more fully described in the complaint, the Complainant seeks a refund for all over-charges resulting from this allocation. In addition, the Complainant requests that the Commission order the Respondent to amend its tariff provisions related to cost allocation for Operating Reserves charges. The Complainant represents in the complaint that the Respondent agrees to submit its answer on or before November 2, 2012.

The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on October 18, 2012, pursuant to sections 215(d)(6) and 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 824o(d)(6) and 824e (2010), section 39.6 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations 18 CFR 39.6 (2011) and rule 206 of Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2011), Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Complainants) filed a complaint and petition requesting resolution of the conflict between Western Electric Coordinating Council and North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (Respondent) implementation of Regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 and the transmission curtailment priorities specified in the Commission'spro formaOpen Access Transmission Tariff.

The Complainant stated that copies of the complaint and petition have been served on the Respondents as listed on the Certificate of Service appended to the complaint and petition.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

1. By application filed on July 30, 2012 and supplemented on August 14, 2012, Mr. Jesse S. Capel and Mr. Hilton J. Cochran and EWP LLC informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the Eury Dam Project No. 4815, originally issued February 7, 1983,1and transferred to EWP LLC by application.2The project is located on the Little River in Montgomery County, North Carolina. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.

122 FERC ¶ 62,158, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less.

2Notice for Transfer of Exemption to Project 4815, filed July 30, 2012 and supplemented on August 14, 2012.

Take notice that on August 13, 2012, Western Area Power Administration submitted its revised version of its Western Rate Schedules, to be effective October 1, 2012.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on July 14, 2011, Western Area Power Administration submitted its revised version of its Tariff Title for the Western Rate Schedules database, to be effective July 14, 2011.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on October 9, 2012, Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively, Sabine Pass), 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP13-2-000, an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's Regulations, to amend the authorizations granted on April 16, 2012 in Docket No. CP11-72-000 (Liquefaction Project) in order to construct and operate certain related facilities (Modification Project) at the existing Sabine Pass LNG Terminal, located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Sabine Pass states that the Modification Project is required to enhance the operation and reliability, as well as facilitate the construction, of the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link athttp://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov,using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please emailFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

EPA announced in theFederal Registeron October 3, 2012 [FRL-9737-3] a Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC) Teleconference to be held on October 22, 2012. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, EPA gives notice of cancellation of that public meeting for the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC provides policy advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. The purpose of this teleconference was to discuss specific topics of relevance for consideration by the Committee in order to provide advice and insights to the Agency on environmental policies and programs that affect and engage agriculture and rural communities.

Dated: October 17, 2012.Alicia Kaiser,Designated Federal Officer.[FR Doc. 2012-26527 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-PENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY[FRL-9747-5]Reissuance of the NPDES General Permits for Oil and Gas Exploration Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf and Contiguous State Waters in the Beaufort Sea and on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Chukchi Sea, AKAGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of availability of final NPDES general permits.

SUMMARY:

The Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10, is publishing this notice of availability of the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Oil and Gas Exploration Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf and Contiguous State Waters in the Beaufort Sea (Permit No. AKG282100) and on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Chukchi Sea (Permit No. AKG288100). The Beaufort and Chukchi general permits authorize thirteen types of discharges from facilities engaged in field exploration and exploratory drilling activities under the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 425, Subpart A), as authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA or “the Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1342. The Beaufort and Chukchi general permits contain effluent limitations and requirements that ensure the discharges will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, as required by Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act (i.e. the Ocean Discharge Criteria), 33 U.S.C. 1343(c).

DATES:

The issuance date of the Beaufort and Chukchi NPDES general permits is October 29, 2012, the date of publication of this notice. The Beaufort and Chukchi general permits shall become effective on November 28, 2012. Operators must submit a new Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge within 120 days prior to initiation of discharges. Operators that have administratively extended coverage under the previous general permit must submit new NOIs that comply with the submission requirements of the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits, the Response to Comments document, and the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations may be found on the Region 10 Web site at:http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/npdes+public+notices/arctic-gp-pn-2012.Copies of the documents are available upon request. Written requests for copies of the documents may be submitted to EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW-130, Seattle, WA 98101. Electronic requests may be sent to:washington.audrey@epa.gov.Requests by telephone may be made to Audrey Washington at (206) 553-0523.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erin Seyfried at (206) 553-1448,seyfried.erin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 26, 2011, the previous NPDES general permit, the Arctic general permit, No. AKG280000, expired. EPA is replacing the Arctic general permit with two general permits, the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits, renumbered as AKG282100 and AKG288100, respectively. EPA solicited public comments on the draft Beaufort and Chukchi general permits in theFederal Registeron January 31, 2012. Notices of the draft general permits were also published in the Anchorage Daily News, the Arctic Sounder, and Petroleum News on January 30, 2012. Public meetings and hearings were held in communities on the North Slope and in Anchorage the week of March 12-16, 2012. The comment period closed on March 30, 2012. Changes have been made to the general permits in response to comments received from tribal, state, and local governments, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, environmental advocacy groups, industry representatives, trade organizations, and individual citizens. All comments, along with EPA's responses, are summarized in the Response to Comments document.

State Certification of Beaufort General Permit.Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341, on October 9, 2012, the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) certified that the conditions of the Beaufort general permit comply with State Water Quality Standards (Alaska Administrative Code 18 AAC 15, 18 AAC 70, and 18 AAC72), including the State's antidegradation policy.

Oil Spill Requirements.Section 311 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321, prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous materials in harmful quantities. Discharges authorized under the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits are excluded from the provisions of CWA Section 311, 33 U.S.C. 1321. However, the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits will not preclude the institution of legal action, or relieve the permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for other unauthorized discharges of oil and hazardous materials, which are covered by Section 311.

Endangered Species Act.Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions have the potential to either beneficially or adversely affect any threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat. On March 30, 2012 and April 11, 2012, EPA received concurrences from USFWS and NMFS, respectively, that exploration discharges authorized by the general permits are not likely to adversely affect endangered, threatened, and candidate and proposed species and designated critical habitat areas.

Essential Fish Habitat.The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires EPA to consult with NMFS when a proposed discharge has the potential to adversely affect an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EPA's EFH assessments conclude that the discharges authorized by the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits will not adversely affect EFH or those species regulated under a Federal Fisheries Management Plan.

Coastal Zone Management Act.As of July 1, 2011, there is no longer a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) program in Alaska. Consequently, federal agencies are no longer required to provide the State of Alaska with CZMA consistency determinations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act.5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis on rules subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, NPDES general permits are not “rules” and are therefore not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, generally requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their “regulatory actions” (defined to be the same as “rules” subject to the RFA) on tribal, state, and local governments and the private sector. However, the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits are not “rules” subject to the RFA, and are therefore not subject to the UMRA.

Appeal of Permit.Any interested person may appeal the Beaufort and Chukchi general permits in the Federal Court of Appeals in accordance with section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1). This appeal must be filed within 120 days of the permit issuance date. Persons affected by the permit may not challenge the conditions of the permit in further EPA proceedings (see 40 CFR 124.19). Instead, they may either challenge the permits in court or apply for an individual NPDES permit.

Authority:

This action is taken under the authority of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby provide public notice of the final permit action in accordance with 40 CFR 124.15(b).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension of the Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-5). On July 2, 2012, the EEOC published a notice stating it was requesting OMB approval for a revision to the previously approved EEO-5 under the PRA's emergency processing procedures. 77 FR 39238 (July 2, 2012). At that time, EEOC requested approval to revise the race and ethnicity categories on the EEO-5 report to conform to OMB'sStandards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the revised EEO-5 through February 2013. EEOC is now requesting a regular extension without change of the revised EEO-5.

DATES:

Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before December 28, 2012. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), a public hearing concerning the EEO-5 will be held at a place and time to be announced. Persons wishing to present their views orally should notify the Commission of their desire to do so in writing no later than November 28, 2012. The request to present views orally at a public hearing should include a written summary of the remarks to be offered.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide. Copies of comments submitted by the public to EEOC directly or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal will be available for review, by advance appointment only, at the Commission's library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5 p.m. or can be reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at EEOC's library, contact the library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulations5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Type of Respondent:Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

Description of Affected Public:Certain public elementary and secondary school districts.

Number of Responses:6,190.

Estimated Burden Hours:15,475.

Cost to the Respondents:$0.

Federal Cost:$190,000.

Number of Forms:1.

Form Number:EEOC Form 168A.

Abstract:Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, to preserve such records, and to produce reports as the Commission prescribes by regulation or order. Accordingly, the EEOC issued regulations prescribing the reporting requirements for elementary and secondary public school districts. The EEOC uses EEO-5 data to investigate charges of employment discrimination against elementary and secondary public school districts. The data also are used for research. The data are shared with the Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights) and the Department of Justice. Pursuant to Section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-5 data also are shared with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).

When the EEO-5 form was previously approved by OMB in April 2012, it utilized the following race and ethnicity categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native. OMB has recently approved use of a revised EEO-5 form through February 2013. The revised form utilizes the following race and ethnicity categories: Hispanic or Latino; White; Black or African American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Two or More Races. EEOC is now requesting a regular extension without change of the revised EEO-5 Form.

Burden Statement:The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial EEO-5 survey is 6,190 public elementary and secondary school districts. The form is estimated to impose 15,475 burden hours biennially.

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

d. Description of Applicant's trace finance and or commercial lending or asset based lending experience and a description of said experience of each member of senior management and each person who will be responsible for the Ex-Im Bank relationship, including each person who will sign the MGA (if one is being requested) or other documents to be submitted to Ex-Im Bank.

Updated all Certifications and Notices as needed.

The Application for Approved Finance Provider will be used to determine if the finance provider has the financial strength and administrative staff to originate, administer, collect, and if needed, restructure international loans. This application will also improve Ex-Im Bank' s compliance with the Open Government initiative by providing transparency into specific information used to determine if an applicant is qualified to use our loan guarantee programs. Export-Import Bank potential finance providers will be able to submit this form on paper. In the future, we will consider allowing the submission of this information electronically.

This application can be viewed atwww.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB10_06.pfd.

Titles and Form Number:EIB 10-06 Application for Approved Finance Provider.

OMB Number:3048-0032.

Type of Review:Regular.

Need and Use:The Application for Approved Finance Provider will be used to determine the financial and administrative capabilities of a financial provider who will arrange, fund and administer international loans.

The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may file a comment athttps://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/competeincconsentonline or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection below. Write “Compete, Inc., File No. 102 3155” on your comment and file your comment online athttps://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/competeincconsent,by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 22, 2012), on the World Wide Web, athttp://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 19, 2012. Write “Compete, Inc., File No. 102 3155” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, athttp://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which * * * is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

1In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.SeeFTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it athttps://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/competeincconsentby following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!home,you also may file a comment through that Web site.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Compete, Inc., File No. 102 3155” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Visit the Commission Web site athttp://www.ftc.govto read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 19, 2012. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, athttp://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order applicable to Compete, Inc. (“Compete”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

Compete develops software for tracking consumers as they shop, browse and interact with different Web sites across the Internet. As alleged in the Commission's complaint, Competeoffered one version of its tracking software as the Compete Toolbar, which would provide consumers with information about Web sites as they surfed the web, such as information about the popularity of the Web sites they visited. Separately, Compete offered consumers membership in its Consumer Input Panel: Consumers could win rewards while participating in surveys about products and services. As part of the registration process for the Consumer Input Panel, consumers would install tracking software. In addition, Compete licensed its tracking software to third parties, such as Upromise, Inc., which was the subject of a recent FTC enforcement action. (See Upromise, Inc.)http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023116/index.shtm.

The Commission's complaint involves the advertising, marketing and operation of tracking software. According to the FTC complaint, while Compete represented to consumers that the various forms of software would collect information about the Web sites consumers visited, its failure to disclose the full extent of data collected through tracking software was deceptive. The complaint alleges that Compete's tracking software collected the names of all Web sites visited; all links followed; advertisements displayed when Web sites were visited; and information that consumers entered into some web pages (e.g., credit card and financial account numbers, usernames, passwords, and search terms), including secure web pages.

According to the FTC complaint, Compete misrepresented its privacy and security practices, including that: (1) It stripped all personal information out of the data it collected before transmitting it from consumers' computers; and (2) it employed reasonable and appropriate measures to protect data gathered from consumers from unauthorized access. The complaint alleges that these claims were false and thus violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.

In addition, the FTC complaint alleges that Compete engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for the personal information it collected and maintained. The complaint alleges that, among other things, Compete: (1) Transmitted sensitive information from secure web pages, such as financial account numbers and security codes, in clear readable text; (2) did not design and implement reasonable safeguards to control risks to consumer information; and (3) did not use readily available, low-cost measures to assess and address the risk that its software would collect sensitive consumer information it was not authorized to collect.

The complaint alleges that Compete's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect consumer information—including credit card and financial account numbers, security codes and expiration dates, and Social Security numbers—was unfair. Tools for capturing data in transit, for example over unsecured wireless networks such as those often provided in coffee shops and other public spaces, are commonly available, making such clear-text data vulnerable to interception. The misuse of such information—particularly financial account information and Social Security numbers—can facilitate identity theft and related consumer harms.

The complaint alleges that after flaws in Compete's data collection practices were revealed publicly in January 2010, Compete upgraded its filters, added new algorithms to screen out information such as credit card numbers, and began encrypting data in transit.

The proposed order contains provisions designed to prevent Compete from engaging in future practices similar to those alleged in the complaint. For purposes of the proposed consent order, we call such tracking software a “Data Collection Agent.”2

2“Data Collection Agent” is defined in the proposed order as any software program, including any application; created, licensed or distributed, directly or through a Third Party, by respondent; installed on consumers' computers, whether as a standalone product or as a feature of another product; and used to record, or transmit information about any activity occurring on that computer, unless: (a) The activity involves transmission of information related to the configuration of the software program or application itself; (b) the transmission is limited to information about whether the program is functioning as intended; or (c) the activity involves a consumer's interactions with respondent's Web sites and/or forms.

Part I applies to collection and use of data from any Data Collection Agent, whether already downloaded or to be downloaded in the future, and is tailored to address distribution by both Compete and third parties. Specifically Parts I.A. and B. of the proposed order apply to Data Collection Agents installed after the date of service of the order. Part I.A. prohibits Compete from collecting data through a Data Collection Agent unless a consumer has given express affirmative consent to such collection, after being provided with a separate, clear and prominent notice about all the types of information that will be collected, as well as a description of how the information is to be used, including any sharing with third parties. Part I.B. ensures these same protections apply when a Data Collection Agent is made available by a third party, and requires that Compete must either provide notice and obtain consent, or require the third party to do so and monitor the third party's compliance. In addition, Parts I.C. and D. of the proposed order limit the collection and use of data from consumers who already have downloaded a Data Collection Agent (i.e., before the date of service of the order) to aggregate and anonymous data, absent notice and affirmative express consent. Part I.E. requires Compete to obtain express affirmative consent before it can make any material changes to its practices for collection or sharing of personal information.

Part II.A. of the proposed order requires Compete to provide corrective notice to consumers who had previously installed a Data Collection Agent. Compete must inform consumers about the categories of personal information collected and transmitted by the software, and how to uninstall it. Part II.B. requires the company to provide for two years phone and email support to assist consumers who seek to disable or uninstall a Data Collection Agent.

Part III of the proposed order requires Compete to provide a copy of the order to third parties with whom it has now, or will have in the future, any agreement in connection with any Data Collection Agent made available by the third party.

Part IV of the proposed order prohibits the company from making any misrepresentations about the extent to which it maintains and protects the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of any information collected from or about consumers.

Part V of the proposed order requires Compete to maintain a comprehensive information security program that is reasonably designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of information (whether in paper or electronic format) about consumers. The security program must contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to Compete's size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the information. Specifically, the proposed order requires Compete to:

• Designate an employee or employees to coordinate and be accountable for the information security program;

• Identify material internal and external risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information that could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, loss, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of such information, andassess the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks;

• Design and implement reasonable safeguards to control the risks identified through risk assessment, and regularly test or monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards' key controls, systems, and procedures;

• Develop and use reasonable steps to select and retain service providers capable of appropriately safeguarding personal information they receive from Compete or obtain on behalf of Compete, and require service providers by contract to implement and maintain appropriate safeguards; and

• Evaluate and adjust its information security programs in light of the results of testing and monitoring, any material changes to operations or business arrangements, or any other circumstances that it knows or has reason to know may have a material impact on its information security program.

Part VI of the proposed order requires Compete to obtain within 180 days after service of the order, and biennially thereafter for 20 years, an assessment and report from a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional, certifying, among other things, that: (1) It has in place a security program that provides protections that meet or exceed the protections required by the proposed order; and (2) its security program is operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance that the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information is protected and has so operated throughout the reporting period.

Part VII requires Compete to destroy all consumer data collected by a Data Collection Agent before February 2010.

Part VIII requires Compete to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order. Part IX requires that it deliver copies of the order to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Parts X, XI, and XII of the proposed order are further reporting and compliance provisions. Part X ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part XI mandates that Compete submit a compliance report to the FTC within 60 days, and periodically thereafter as requested. Part XII provides that the order will terminate after 20 years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of new members to the General Services Administration Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in the performance appraisal process.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5 U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review board(s). The board is responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authority on the performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for the Senior Executive Service employees.

The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the General Services Administration:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email toomb@cdc.gov.Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Improving the Health and Safety of the DiverseWorkforce—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

Stress is one of the major causes of diminished health, safety, and productivity on the job (Jordanet al,2003; Brunner, 2000). Increasing medical care utilization costs, job dissatisfaction, poor job performance, and employee turnover are some of the documented health, economic, psychological, and behavioral consequences of stress (Levi, 1996).

Because of their general concentration in high-hazard and/or lower-status occupations, some racial and ethnic minority workers may be over-exposed to workplace factors (e.g., high workload and low job control) which have traditionally linked to a variety of stress-related health and safety problems. In addition, racial and ethnic minorities appear to be significantly more likely than non-minorities to encounter discrimination and other race-related stressors in the workplace (e.g., Kriegeret al,2006; Robertset al,2004).

Given a potentially greater stress burden, racial and ethnic minority workers may be at heightened risk for the development of health and safety problems associated with stress. On theother hand, occupational stress research experts suggest that certain workplace and other factors (e.g., co-worker and supervisory support, anti-discrimination policies and practices, etc.) may help reduce stress among employees, including racial and ethnic minorities.

The goals of this project are to evaluate: (1) The degree of exposure of minority and non-minority workers to various workplace and job stressors (2) the impact of these stressors on health and safety outcomes and (3) the organizational (e.g., organizational characteristics, policies and practices) and other factors that protect minority and other workers from stress and associated problems in health and safety. The data collection will ultimately help CDC/NIOSH focus intervention and prevention efforts that are designed to benefit the health and safety of the diverse U.S. workforce.

The study entails collecting standardized information from working adults via a telephone interview. Respondents will be asked about: (1) Their exposure to workplace and job stressors, including those related to race and ethnicity (2) their health and safety status and (3) organizational characteristics, policies and practices that may or may not buffer them from the adverse effects of work-related stressors. Respondents will be a random sample of 2,300 Blacks/African Americans, White/European Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and Asian Americans. All telephone interview respondents will be between the ages of 18 and 65, English-speaking, either currently employed or unemployed for no more than 3 years, and living within the Chicago Metropolitan area. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 1,150.

IndividualTelephone Interviews2,300130/60Dated: October 23, 2012.Ron A. Otten,Director, Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), Office of the Associate Director for Science (OADS), Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2012-26496 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and Prevention[30Day-13-12MW]Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations

In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Kimberly S. Lane, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email toomb@cdc.gov.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is requesting a three-year OMB approval for establishing a Hepatitis Testing and Linkage to Care (HEPTLC) Monitoring and Evaluation System to collect standardized, non-identifying, client-level and test-level hepatitis testing information from funded testing sites at multiple settings. Grantees will be required to use this web-based HEPTLC software application to collect and report testing and linkage to care activities.

The HEPTLC data collection and reporting system will enable CDC to receive standardized, non-identifying information from funded grantees, including: (1) Information about test sites that provide HEPTLC services and laboratories that provide lab testing; (2) Information about testing participants, including demographics, risk characteristics, vaccination history, etc. (3) Information related to diagnostic test results; and (4)Information about post-test follow-ups, including notification of test result, post-test-counseling, linkage to care and preventive services, and case report to surveillance authorities. CDC will use HEPTLC data for the following purposes: (1) Monitor the implementation activities of the HEPTLC initiative, as well as evaluate the progress and performance made by the grantees. Findings will further inform strategic planning and program improvement; (2) Inform recommendations and strategies of increasing early identification of infected persons and linkage to care, based on participant characteristics and linkage to care among those persons who are infected; (3) Identify best practices and gaps in implementing HEPTLC in various testing settings, and guide CDC in providing technical assistance to the grantees; (4) Produce standardized and specialized reports that will inform grantees, CDC Project Officers, HHS, Congress and other stakeholders of the process, outcome and accountability measures; (5)Assess public health prevention funds and resources allocations with respect to prioritized risk populations; (6) Advocate the needs for priority setting and budget allocation for hepatitis prevention.

Funded sites will use HEPTLC data for the following purposes: (1) Understand targeted populations (demographics, risk behaviors, vaccination histories, etc) and assess theextent to which the targeted populations have been reached; (2) Document how well the project is progressing in meeting goals/objectives set forth by CDC (e.g. who delivered what to whom, how many, where, when, and how well), as well as performance indicators related to testing, counseling and linkage to care; (3) Highlight opportunities for local program collaboration and service integration (PCSI) to prevent hepatitis: (4)Fulfill data collection and reporting requirements outlined in the cooperative agreements.

The data will enable CDC to be accountable for the funding it provides, the populations that are served, the services being provided, and for the strategies and practices effectiveness in implementing HEPTLC. The data will also enable CDC to be accountable to the administration, Congress, or other stakeholders for the proper use of public money or provide transparency for the programs it funds.

Respondents will be testing sites at multiple settings, including health departments, community based organizations (CBOs), community health centers (CHCs), person who inject drugs (PWID) treatment centers, and other settings, e.g. HIV or STD clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). They will routinely collect, enter, and report information about the test site, client demographics and behaviors, testing results and linkage to care follow up information within the web-based HEPTLC system. CDC anticipates that routine information collection will begin once OMB approval is received and will be carried out through the project period September 2012-September 2013.

There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 6000.

HEPTLC Template (program-level reporting/quarterly)4041.5Dated: October 22, 2012.Ron A. Otten,Director, Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), Office of the Associate Director for Science (OADS), Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2012-26498 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and PreventionSubcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

Status:Open to the public, but without an oral public comment period. To access by conference call dial the following information 1 (866) 659-0537, Participant Pass Code 9933701.

Background:The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2013.

Purpose:The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to signFederal Registernotices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Dated: October 22, 2012.Elaine L. Baker,Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2012-26495 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAdvisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET)

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

Status:Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.

Purpose:This council advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Director, CDC, regarding the elimination of tuberculosis. Specifically, the Council makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; addresses the development and application of new technologies; and reviews the extent to which progress has been made toward eliminating tuberculosis.

Matters To Be Discussed:Agenda items include the following topics: (1) CDC's efforts on global tuberculosis control; (2) The epidemiology of TB-HIV in the United States; (3) Post-deployment tuberculosis in the United States military; (4) ACET workgroups activities updates; and (5) other tuberculosis-related issues.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to signFederal RegisterNotices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

DATES:

Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed tooira_submission@omb.eop.gov.All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and title “Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types (2013-2022).” Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types (2013-2022)—(OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)I. Background

In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's National Retail Food Team initiated a 10-year voluntary survey to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors—preparation practices and employee behaviors most commonly reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, the survey included data collection inspections of various types of retail and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and 2008) in order to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following foodborne illness risk factors:

• Food from Unsafe Sources.

• Poor Personal Hygiene.

• Inadequate Cooking.

• Improper Holding/Time and Temperature.

• Contaminated Equipment/Protection from Contamination.

FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1 to 3). Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice facility types (Ref. 4).

The research obtained from these studies provides FDA a solid foundation for developing a national retail food program model that can be used by Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to:

• Identify essential food safety program performance measurements;

• Assess strengths and gaps in the design, structure, and delivery of program services;

• Establish program priorities and intervention strategies focused on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors; and

• Create a mechanism that justifies program resources and allocates them to program areas that will provide the most significant public health benefits.

Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, FDA is proposing to conduct a new voluntary survey encompassing annual data collections over a 10-year period. The survey willdetermine the following for each facility type included in the study:

• The foodborne illness risk factors that are in most need of priority attention during each data collection period;

• Trends of improvement or regression in foodborne illness risk factor occurrence over time; and

The statutory basis for FDA conducting this survey is the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C 243, section 311(a)) (Also 21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)), which requires that FDA provide assistance to state and local governments relative to the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases. In addition, the PHS Act requires that FDA cooperate with and aid state and local authorities in the enforcement of their health regulations and provide advice on matters relating to the preservation and improvement of public health. Additionally, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301) and Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) require that FDA provide assistance to other Federal, State, and local governmental bodies.

In early 2013, FDA will conduct a pilot data collection to practice the use of the data collection form and methods and test exportation of the pilot data into a central repository. Following the pilot, the Agency plans to conduct annual data collections beginning in 2013 with the initial data collection for select restaurant facility types, followed by the initial data collection for select institutional foodservice facility types in 2014 and select retail food store facility types in 2015. The results of the initial data collection for each of the facility types will serve as the baseline measurement from which trends will be analyzed. Two additional data collection periods for each of the facility types are planned at 3-year intervals after the initial data collection for purposes of analyzing trends.

2015201820211Data collections for each of the facility types within an industry segment will be conducted using a 3-year interval period. Initial data collection will serve as the baseline. Subsequent collections will provide the data needed to analyze trends.

A description of the facility types included in the proposed survey is included in table 2:

Table 2—Description of the Facility Types Included in the SurveyIndustry segmentFacility typeDescriptionRestaurantsFull Service RestaurantsEstablishments where customers place their order at their table, are served their meal at the table, receive the service of the wait staff, and pay at the end of the meal.Fast Food RestaurantsAlso referred to as quick service restaurants and defined as any restaurant that is not a full service restaurant.Institutional FoodserviceHospitalsFoodservice operations that serve patients, staff, and hospital visitors in a traditional hospital setting. Individuals who are acutely ill to those who are immunocompromised are a target population for data collection.Nursing HomesFoodservice operations that serve highly susceptible populations living in a group care setting. The elderly (55+ years) is the target population for the data collection. Also includes assisted living facilities.Elementary Schools (K-5)Foodservice operations that serve students from one or more grade levels from preschool through grade 5. Young children are a target population for the data collection.Retail Food StoresDeli Departments/StoresDepartments in retail food stores where potentially hazardous foods (time/temperature control for safety foods) such as luncheon meats and cheeses are sliced for the customer and where sandwiches and salads are prepared on site or received from a commissary in bulk containers, portioned, and displayed. Freestanding cheese shops are categorized as delis. Parts of the deli may also include:• Salad bars and other food bars maintained by the deli department manager;• Areas where meat or poultry are cooked and offered for sale as ready-to-eat;• Pizza stands; and• Limited bakery operations attached to or adjacent to the deli.Meat and Poultry Departments/MarketsMeat and poultry departments in a retail food store, as well as any freestanding meat market or butcher shop that sells raw meat or poultry directly to the consumer.Seafood Departments/MarketsSeafood departments in retail food stores and freestanding seafood markets that sell seafood directly to the consumer including the preparation and sale of raw and/or ready-to-eat seafood. In-store sushi bars are considered part of the seafood department for the purposes of the data collection.Produce Departments/MarketsAreas or departments where produce is cut, prepared, stored, or displayed. A produce department may include salad bars that are managed by the produce manager, as well as juicers.

A geographical information system database containing a listing of businesses throughout the United States will be used as the establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Biostatistical Branch, in collaboration with the FDA National Retail Food Team, will perform a series of filtering processes of the various database food establishment categories to ensure establishments are correctly classified and considered eligible to participate in the survey based on the descriptions in table 2.

To further determine the pool of establishments eligible for selection, an effort will be made to exclude operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct low-risk food preparation activities. The FDA Food Code contains a grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5). The vast majority of selected establishments are to be chosen from risk categories 2 through 4.

FDA has approximately 25 Regional Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who will serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's CFSAN personnel in the application and interpretation of the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5). The geographical distribution of Specialists throughout the United States allows for a broad sampling of facility types in all regions of the United States; therefore, establishments will be randomly selected to participate in the study from among all eligible establishments located within a 150-mile radius of each of the Specialists' home locations.

The pilot will include approximately 4 data collection inspections for each of the approximately 25 Specialists, or a total of 100 inspections. In order to obtain a sufficient number of observations to conduct statistically significant analysis, the FDA CFSAN Biostatistical Branch has determined, based on the previous 10-year foodborne illness risk factor study that was performed, that approximately 400 data collection inspections of each facility type are needed during the initial and subsequent data collection periods. The sample for each data collection period will be evenly distributed among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment is subject to change, substitute establishments will be selected for each Specialist for cases in which the restaurant facility is misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling to participate.

Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists will contact the state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The Specialist will verify with the jurisdiction that the facility has been properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in operation. The Specialist will also ascertain whether the selected facility is under legal notice from the state or local regulatory authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not conduct a data collection and a substitute establishment will be used. An invitation will be extended to the state or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.

A standard data collection form will be used by the Specialists during each inspection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1—Establishment Information; Section 2—Regulatory Authority Information; and Section 3—Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food Safety Management System Assessment. Section 3 includes three parts (parts A-C) for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination, proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards (part A); the industry food safety management being implemented by the facility (part B); and the frequency of food employee hand washing (part C).

In completing Section 1—Establishment Information of the form, Specialists will ask a standardized set of questions to the establishment owner or person in charge. In completing Section 2—Regulatory Authority Information, the Specialist will ask a standardized set of questions to the program director (orother designed personnel) of the state or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting inspections for the selected establishment. The information for completing Section 3, part A of the form will be collected from the Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and practices, supplemented by infrequent, nonstandardized questions to industry personnel when clarification is needed of the food safety procedure or practice being observed. For Section 3, part B of the form, Specialists will ask industry management a standardized set of questions to obtain information on the extent to which the food establishments have developed and implemented food safety management systems. Section 3, part C of the form will involve only direct observations of hand washing frequency by the Specialists. No questions will be asked in the completion of this part of the form.

In theFederal Registerof June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36544), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. There were five comments received:

(Comment 1) Jane Public commented that she does not see the usefulness of the study. She also commented that most foodborne illness resulting from food from unsafe sources was caused by agribusiness. She commented that having a Web site on which the public or doctors treating the sick and deceased can post information about foodborne illness would be more effective and targeted than the data collection being proposed by FDA.

(Response) FDA believes that many of the comments made by this submitter are unrelated to the proposed data collection. Relative to the suggestion to have a Web site on which the public or doctors treating the sick or deceased can post information about foodborne illness, surveillance systems like this are already used in the United States to provide information about the occurrence of foodborne disease including, but not limited to, the following: Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet); National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System—enteric bacteria (NARMS); National Electronic Norovirus Outbreak Network (CaliciNet); National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease Surveillance (PulseNet); National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS); National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS); Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net); and the Public Health Laboratory Information System (PHLIS). While each surveillance system plays an important role in detecting and preventing foodborne disease and outbreaks, surveillance statistics reflect only a fraction of the cases that occur in the community. This is because foodborne illnesses are largely underdiagnosed and underreported. In addition, surveillance statistics are, by nature, reactive, meaning information is obtained on foodborne illness that has already occurred. In contrast, the data collection proposed by FDA is proactive in nature because it seeks to collect data on the behaviors and practices that could lead to foodborne illness or deaths if not controlled. Using this data, FDA will formulate and implement intervention strategies to proactively reduce foodborne illness risk factors that lead to illness or death if not controlled. For these reasons, FDA does not agree with the submitter that another surveillance-type reporting system would be more effective or targeted than the data collection being proposed by FDA.

(Comment 2) The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) commented that FDA appears to have underestimated the amount of time needed at 15 minutes per event. The commenter states that based on the retail industry's experience during the last survey (2008), the time spent collecting and monitoring data points took up 120 minutes per event per retail grocer, and this caused an undue interruption to business operations and passed on unnecessary costs to those surveyed.

(Response) OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(h) define the term “information.” Numbered paragraphs under (h) list categories of data that are not “information,” and thus do not require OMB approval under the PRA. Under paragraph (h)(3), “[f]acts or opinions obtained through direct observation by an employee or agent of the sponsoring agency or through nonstandardized oral communication in connection with such direct observations,” is not “information collection” subject to OMB approval under the PRA. Thus, the estimate of burden is not required to account for the duration of the entire inspection since the data collector's questions will largely be nonstandardized, oral communication in connection with his or her direct observations.

In contrast, information collected in Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the data collection form is not available to the data collectors by direct observation together with nonstandardized, oral communication and can only be obtained by asking the establishment's representatives to respond to a set of standardized questions. Thus, the burden is accurately calculated based solely on the time it will take for the data collectors to interview the respondents to complete these specific sections of the form. However, in consideration of FMI's comment and recent data collection training that was conducted with FDA's National Retail Food Team in September 2012, FDA believes that the original burden for the respondents that was published in table 1 of the 60-day notice may have been underestimated. For this reason, FDA is increasing the burden estimate for each respondent to 30 minutes per response.

(Comment 3) FMI commented that FDA is not aligned with CDC in the development of the study. According to CDC data, most foodborne illness outbreaks occur in restaurants (39 percent compared to <1 percent foodborne illness events occurring in grocery stores as well as 21 percent compared to <1 percent actual foodborne illnesses occurring in grocery stores). Based on the data, FMI believes the study seems to put an unnecessary burden on retail grocery stores as retail grocery stores will be surveyed at a 4:1 ratio. The study should be more balanced between the restaurants and grocers.

(Response) FDA has kept and will continue to keep key CDC staff informed of the plans for and results of the Risk Factor Study so that areas in which our concurrent studies reinforce or run counter to one another can be analyzed and appropriate prevention-based messages developed.

The proposed sample size for each facility type is not intended to mirror the respective burden of foodborne illness caused by each type, but rather represents the minimum number of inspections needed to obtain the number of observations needed to draw statistically significant conclusions. If FDA reduced the number of establishments inspected for the retail food store facility types, it is likely FDA would not obtain the number of observations needed to draw statistically valid conclusions or have the desired confidence level in the data that is obtained.

The restaurant industry segment includes two facility types, institutional foodservice includes three facility types, and the retail food store industry segment includes four facility types. While the total number of data collection inspections in retail food store segment will be higher than that for the restaurant segment, the numberof data collection inspections for each facility type will be the same.

(Comment 4) FMI believes the proposed study fails to meet FDA's Information Quality Guidelines and the requirements of the Data Quality Act because its structure will not provide information of utility to the public or the Agency as it is disproportionately focused on retail food stores when statistics indicate that far more foodborne illness events occur in restaurants.

(Response) Information dissemination is an important part of FDA's mission to promote and protect the public health. FDA recognizes that public access to high quality information is critical to achieving this mission and public input, in turn, improves the quality of the information we disseminate. Because of the nature of this information, our goal has been and remains to ensure that all the information we disseminate meets the high standards of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity) described in the OMB and HHS Guidelines and the Data Quality Act (DQA).

To that end, FDA does not agree with FMI's comment that the proposed information collection fails to meet FDA's Information Quality Guidelines and the requirements of the DQA. The sample size in the proposed information collection is not intended to mirror the respective burden of foodborne illness caused by each facility type. Rather, it represents the minimum number of inspections needed for each facility type in order to obtain a sufficient number of observations to draw statistically significant conclusions. If FDA were to reduce the sample size of the retail food store facility types to be more reflective of the burden of foodborne illness caused by these entities, the quality of the data would be compromised and its utility would be severely limited. This is because it would be unlikely that FDA could obtain the number of observations needed to draw statistically valid conclusions or have the desired confidence level in the conclusions we are able to make.

(Comment 5) The American Meat Institute Foundation (AMIF) commented that they support FDA's proposed survey of selected retail and foodservice facility types. According to AMIF, the survey findings will have practical utility by enhancing the knowledge of foodborne illness risk factors in these types of facilities, informing decisions for developing and implementing risk mitigation strategies, and guiding food safety resource allocation. The followup data collection periods will be useful tools to track trends and benchmark improvements in reducing risk factors.

(Response) FDA thanks the AMIF for their comments and appreciates their support in this undertaking.

Regarding the burden estimation, due to the infrequent and nonstandard nature of the questions that may or may not be asked to clarify direct observations made by the Specialists in completing Section 3, parts A and C of the data collection form, only the burden associated with the information collection related to the completion of Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form is included in burden estimates. For each data collection, the respondents will include the person in charge of the selected facility and the program director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory authority. In consideration of FMI's comment to the 60-day notice and recent data collection training that was conducted with FDA's National Retail Food Team in September 2012, FDA believes that the original burden that was published in table 3 of the 60-day notice may have been underestimated. For this reason, FDA is increasing the burden estimate for each respondent by 15 minutes per response. For the pilot, 25 Specialists will conduct 4 data collection inspections; thus, FDA estimates the number of respondents to be 200 (25 Specialists × 4 data collection inspections × 2 respondents per data collection). The estimate of the hours per response is based on its previous experience with collecting similar information in previous data collection efforts. We estimate that it will take each of the respondents 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 100 hours. FDA bases its estimate of the number of respondents during the subsequent activities (data collections) on 400 inspections being conducted in each facility type. FDA CFSAN's Biostatistical Branch has determined that 400 inspections are necessary to provide the sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data. The data collections in the Restaurant Segment will occur in 2013, 2016, and 2019 and will each consist of 1,600 respondents. We estimate that it will take each respondent 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 800 hours. The data collections in the Institutional Foodservice Segment will occur in 2014, 2017, and 2020 and will each consist of 2,400 respondents. We estimate that it will take each respondent 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 1,200 hours. The data collections in the Retail Food Store Segment will occur in 2015, 2018, and 2021 and will each consist of 3,200 respondents. We estimate that it will take a respondent 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions related to Sections 1 and 2 and Section 3, part B of the form, for a total of 1,600 hours. Thus, the total estimated burden is 10,900 hours.

Table 3—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden1ActivityNumber of

respondents

Number of

responses per

respondent

Total annual

responses

Average burden

per response

Total hoursPilot Data Collection to Practice Use of Form and Methods and Exportation of Data into Central Repository20012000.51002013 Baseline Data Collection—Restaurant Segment (includes two facility types)1,60011,60020.58002014 Baseline Data Collection—Institutional Foodservice Segment (includes three facility types)2,40012,40020.51,2002015 Baseline Data Collection—Retail Food Store Segment (includes four facility types)3,20013,20020.51,6002016 Second Data Collection—Restaurant Segment (includes two facility types)1,60011,60020.58002017 Second Data Collection—Institutional Foodservice Segment (includes three facility types)2,40012,40020.51,2002018 Second Data Collection—Retail Food Store Segment (includes four facility types)3,20013,20020.51,6002019 Third and Final Data Collection—Restaurant Segment (includes two facility types)1,60011,60020.58002020 Third and Final Data Collection—Institutional Foodservice Segment (includes three facility types)2,40012,40020.51,2002021 Third and Final Data Collection—Retail Food Store Segment (includes four facility types)3,20013,20020.51,600Total10,9001There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.230 minutes.II. References

The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in theFederal Register.)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

DATES:

Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed tooira_submission@omb.eop.gov.All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0456. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

PHS Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation—(OMB Control Number 0910-0456)—Extension

The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 301et seq.). The PHS guideline recommends procedures to diminish the risk of transmission of infectious agents to the xenotransplantation product recipient and to the general public. The PHS guideline is intended to address public health issues raised by xenotransplantation, through identification of general principles of prevention and control of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation that may pose a hazard to the public health. The collection of information described in this guideline is intended to provide general guidance on the following topics: (1) The development of xenotransplantation clinical protocols; (2) the preparation of submissions to FDA; and (3) the conduct of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Also, the collection of information will help ensure that the sponsor maintains important information in a cross-referenced system that links the relevant records of the xenotransplantation product recipient, xenotransplantation product, source animal(s), animal procurement center, and significant nosocomial exposures. The PHSguideline describes an occupational health service program for the protection of health care workers involved in xenotransplantation procedures, caring for xenotransplantation product recipients, and performing associated laboratory testing. The PHS guideline is intended to protect the public health and to help ensure the safety of using xenotransplantation products in humans by preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation.

The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) Records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (3.7.1); animal health records (3.7.2), including necropsy results (3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.

The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These characteristics include long latency periods and the ability to establish persistent infections. Several also share the possibility of transmission among individuals through intimate contact with human body fluids. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Human T-lymphotropic virus are human retroviruses. Retroviruses contain ribonucleic acid that is reverse-transcribed into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) using an enzyme provided by the virus and the human cell machinery. That viral DNA can then be integrated into the human cellular DNA. Both viruses establish persistent infections and have long latency periods before the onset of disease, 10 years and 40 to 60 years, respectively. The human hepatitis viruses are not retroviruses, but several share with HIV the characteristic that they can be transmitted through body fluids, can establish persistent infections, and have long latency periods, e.g., approximately 30 years for Hepatitis C.

In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and nosocomial exposures.

Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated two respondents who are sponsors of INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated four source animal facilities that provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These four source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is estimated to be approximately 45 hours. The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.

FDA is requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:

Table 1—Reporting RecommendationsPHS Guideline sectionDescription3.2.7.2Notify sponsor or FDA of new archive site when the source animal facility or sponsor ceases operations.Table 2—Recordkeeping RecommendationsPHS Guideline sectionDescription3.2.7Establish records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant records.4.3Sponsor to maintain cross-referenced system that links all relevant records (recipient, product, source animal, animal procurement center, and nosocomial exposures).3.4.2Document results of monitoring program used to detect introduction of infectious agents which may not be apparent clinically.3.4.3.2Document full necropsy investigations including evaluation for infectious etiologies.3.5.1Justify shortening a source animal's quarantine period of 3 weeks prior to xenotransplantation product procurement.3.5.2Document absence of infectious agent in xenotransplantation product if its presence elsewhere in source animal does not preclude using it.3.5.4Add summary of individual source animal record to permanent medical record of the xenotransplantation product recipient.3.6.4Document complete necropsy results on source animals (50-year record retention).3.7Link xenotransplantation product recipients to individual source animal records and archived biologic specimens.4.2.3.2Record baseline sera of xenotransplantation health care workers and specific nosocomial exposure.4.2.3.3 and 4.3.2Keep a log of health care workers' significant nosocomial exposure(s).4.3.1Document each xenotransplant procedure.5.2Document location and nature of archived PHS specimens in health care records of xenotransplantation product recipient and source animal.Table 3—Disclosure RecommendationsPHS Guideline sectionDescription3.2.7.2Notify sponsor or FDA of new archive site when the source animal facility or sponsor ceases operations.3.4Standard operating procedures (SOPs) of source animal facility should be available to review bodies.3.5.1Include increased infectious risk in informed consent if source animal quarantine period of 3 weeks is shortened.3.5.4Sponsor to make linked records described in section 3.2.7 available for review.3.5.5Source animal facility to notify sponsor when infectious agent is identified in source animal or herd after xenotransplantation product procurement.

In theFederal Registerof June 14, 2012 (77 FR 35683), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received one comment from the public. The comment was not responsive to the comment request on the four specified aspects of the collection of information and did not provide any data or explanation that would support a change regarding the information collection requirements.

FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:

Table 4—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden1PHS Guideline sectionNo. of

respondents

No. of

responses per

respondent

Total annual responsesAverage burden per responseTotal hours3.2.7.221110.50 (30 minutes)0.501There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.2FDA is using one animal facility or sponsor for estimation purposes.Table 5—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden1PHS Guideline sectionNo. of

recordkeepers

No. of

records per

recordkeeper

Total annual recordsAverage burden per recordkeepingTotal hours3.2.7211116164.332120.75 (45 minutes)1.503.4.24216320.25 (15 minutes)83.4.3.252480.25 (15 minutes)23.5.1620.5010.50 (30 minutes)0.503.5.2620.5010.25 (15 minutes)0.253.5.42120.17 (10 minutes)0.343.6.472480.25 (15 minutes)23.77428.00.08 (5 minutes)0.644.2.3.28225500.17 (10 minutes)8.504.2.3.2620.5010.17 (10 minutes)0.174.2.3.3 and 4.3.2620.5010.17 (10 minutes)0.174.3.12120.25 (15 minutes)0.505.2926120.08 (5 minutes)0.96Total41.531There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.2A one-time burden for new respondents to set up a recordkeeping system linking all relevant records. FDA is using one new sponsor for estimation purposes.3FDA estimates there is minimal recordkeeping burden associated with maintaining the record system.4Monitoring for sentinel animals (subset representative of herd) plus all source animals. There are approximately 6 sentinel animals per herd × 1 herd per facility × 4 facilities = 24 sentinel animals. There are approximately 8 source animals per year (see footnote 7 of this table); 24 + 8 = 32 monitoring records to document.5Necropsy for animal deaths of unknown cause estimated to be approximately 2 per herd per year × 1 herd per facility × 4 facilities = 8.6Has not occurred in the past 3 years and is expected to continue to be a rare occurrence.7On overage 2 source animals are used for preparing xenotransplantation product material for one recipient. The average number of source animals is 2 source animals per recipient × 4 recipients annually = 8 source animals per year. (See footnote 5 of table 3 of this document.)8FDA estimate there re approximately 2 clinical centers doing xenotransplantation procedure × approximately 25 health care workers involved per center = 50 health care workers.9Eight source animal records + 4 recipient records = 12 total records.Table 6—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden1PHS Guideline sectionNo. of

respondents

No. of

disclosures

per respondent

Total annual disclosuresAverage burden per disclosureTotal hours3.2.7.221110.50 (30 minutes)0.503.4340.5020.08 (5 minutes)0.163.5.1440.2510.25 (15 minutes)0.253.5.454140.50 (30 minutes)23.5.5440.2510.25 (15 minutes)0.25Total3.161There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.2FDA is using one animal facility or sponsor for estimation purposes.3FDA's records indicate that an average of two INDs is expected to be submitted per year.4To our knowledge, has not occurred in the past 3 years and is expected to continue to be a rare occurrence.5Based on an estimate of 12 patients treated over a 3-year period, the average number of xenotransplantation produce recipients per year is estimated to be 4.

Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.

Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through 312.160, approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and; (3) information included in a biologics license application, 21 CFR 601.2, approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. (Although it is possible that a xenotransplantation product may not be regulated as a biological product (e.g., it may be regulated as a medical device), FDA believes, based on its knowledge and experience with xenotransplantation, that any xenotransplantation product subject to FDA regulation within the next 3 years will most likely be regulated as a biological product.) However, FDA recognized that some of the information collections go beyond approved collections; assessments for these burdens are included in tables 1 through 6.

In table 7 of this document, FDA identifies those collection of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.

Table 7—Collection of Information Required by Current Regulations and StandardsPHS Guideline sectionDescription of collection of information activity21 CFR Section (unless otherwise stated)2.2.1Document offsite collaborations.312.522.5Sponsor ensures counseling patient + family + contacts.312.62(c)3.1.1 and 3.1.6Document well-characterized health history and lineage of source animals.312.23(a)(7)(a) and 211.843.1.8Registration with and import permit from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.42 CFR 71.533.2.2Document collaboration with accredited microbiology labs.312.523.2.3Procedures to ensure the humane care of animals.9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 and PHS Policy13.2.4Procedures consistent for accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC International) and consistent with the National Research Council's (NRC) Guide.AAALAC International Rules of Accreditation2and NRC Guide33.2.5, 3.4, and 3.4.1Herd health maintenance and surveillance to be documented, available, and in accordance with documented procedures; record standard veterinary care.211.100 and 211.1223.2.6Animal facility SOPs.PHS Policy13.3.3Validate assay methods.211.160(a)3.6.1Procurement and processing of xenografts using documented aseptic conditions.211.100 and 211.1223.6.2Develop, implement, and enforce SOPs for procurement and screening processes.211.84(d) and 211.122(c)3.6.4Communicate to FDA animal necropsy findings pertinent to health of recipient.312.32(c)3.7.1PHS specimens to be linked to health records; provide to FDA justification for types of tissues, cells, and plasma, and quantities of plasma and leukocytes collected.312.23(a)(6)4.1.1Surveillance of xenotransplant recipient; sponsor ensures documentation of surveillance program life-long (justify >2 years); investigator case histories (2 years after investigation is discontinued).312.23(a)(6)(iii)(f) and (g), and 312.62(b) and (c)4.1.2Sponsor to justify amount and type of reserve samples.211.1224.1.2.2System for prompt retrieval of PHS specimens and linkage to medical records (recipient and source animal).312.57(a)4.1.2.3Notify FDA of a clinical episode potentially representing a xenogeneic infection.312.324.2.2.1Document collaborations (transfer of obligation).312.524.2.3.1Develop educational materials (sponsor provides investigators with information needed to conduct investigation properly).312.504.3Sponsor to keep records of receipt, shipment, and disposition of investigative drug; investigator to keep records of case histories.312.57 and 312.62(b)1The “Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm).2AAALAC International Rules of Accreditation (http://www.aaalac.org/accreditation/rules.cfm).3The NRC's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”Dated: October 22, 2012.Leslie Kux,Assistant Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. 2012-26494 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160-01-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESIndian Health ServicePrivacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsAGENCY:

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Indian Health Service (IHS).

ACTION:

Notice of New System of Records.

SUMMARY:

As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.552a(e), notice is hereby given that the Indian Health Service (IHS) is creating a new system of records entitled “Personal Health Records (PHR) Administrative Records—IHS” 09-17-0005. The new system will serve as an access system, providing IHS patients with web access to a portion of their personal medical information in the IHS Medical, Health, and Billing Records system, 09-17-0001.

DATES:

Comments on the new system of records must be received no later than December 13, 2012. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in theFederal Registerby the IHS, the new system will become effective on the published date of December 13, 2012.

Comments received will be available for public inspection in the IHS Division of Regulatory Affairs, Room 450-26, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (301) 443-1116 (this is not a toll-free number) for an appointment. Additionally, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) athttp://www.Regulations.gov.

I. Current and Future Functions of the Personal Health Records (PHR) Administrative Records—IHS System (IHS PHR)

The Personal Health Records (PHR) Administrative Records—IHS system (hereafter referred to as “IHS PHR”) is a new web-based access system that will provide IHS patients with Internet access to a portion of their personal medical information in another IHS Privacy Act system. In its current design, the IHS PHR will provide access to information that is a subset of the already defined Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Office of Clinical and Preventive Services (HHS/IHS/OCPS) System of Records Notice (SORN) 09-17-0001-IHS Medical, Health, and Billing Records system. The IHS PHR system will contain administrative records needed to manage patients' web access; initially, patients will be granted access to view and print portions of their official IHS electronic health record (EHR) via the Internet.

As the IHS PHR develops and eventually provides more than just “view” access to the current IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records system, this System of Records Notice will be updated and republished. Future IHS PHR functionality will include providing tools to the patients which they can use to: Improve their own health and increase their knowledge about health conditions; increase communication with their care providers (i.e., secure electronic messaging with their IHS health care providers); request on-line prescription refills and view upcoming appointments; and enter their own medical information in a “self-entered” health information section through a secure and private health space.

Initially, the IHS PHR will not provide user access to a patient's personal health information to anyone other than the patient himself or herself.

The print functionality of the IHS PHR will allow patients to share all or part of the information in their account, once the patient prints it out, with personal representatives that they designate, such as family members, legal guardians, as well as IHS and non-IHS health care providers, which is consistent with existing IHS clinical practices.

As the IHS PHR continues to be developed, it will have the ability to register and verify the identity of the patient's personal representative, in order to provide the representative with user access to the patient's records. In addition, future system enhancements will enable the IHS PHR to store the patient's self-entered information in a separate database, which will eventually have the capacity to be linked orincorporated into the patient's official electronic health record upon the patient's request and/or the IHS's determination that it is appropriate to include in the official medical record.

II. Relationship of IHS PHR to the IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records System

The IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records system is the authoritative source of patients' IHS medical records. Once patients print copies of their medical records using the IHS PHR system, the copies will no longer be maintained subject to or protected by the Privacy Act or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Electronic copies of health information are not considered IHS authoritative records, nor are they considered part of the IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records system of records once they are printed by the patient from their IHS PHR account.

The IHS operates a Health Information Exchange among IHS healthcare facilities. Patient health information needed by healthcare providers is exchanged on a need-to-know basis by directly accessing the official IHS medical record in the IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records system, not by using the IHS PHR system. If a non-IHS health care provider requires information from IHS medical records to treat an IHS patient, the non-IHS health care provider should contact the IHS facility where the IHS patient was last treated to obtain that information. The IHS will disclose pertinent patient medical information when transferring patients from an IHS emergency room and in other emergency situations for treatment and continuity of care purposes (see the SORN for the IHS Medical, Health and Billing Records system, 09-17-0001).

III. The Privacy Act

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the U.S. Government collects, maintains, and uses information about individuals in a system of records. A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about an individual is retrieved by the individual's name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in theFederal Registera system of records notice (SORN) identifying and describing each system of records the agency maintains, including the purposes for which the agency uses information about individuals in the system, the routine uses for which the agency discloses such information outside the agency, and how individual record subjects can exercise their rights under the Privacy Act (e.g., to determine if the system contains information about them).

09-17-0005SYSTEM NAME:

Personal Health Records (PHR) Administrative Records-IHS.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

Unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

IHS local facilities and the IHS National Data Centers. Address locations for IHS facilities are listed in IHS Appendix 1 of the biennial publications of the IHS systems of records.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

The system will contain personally identifiable information (PII) about individuals using the IHS PHR system. Users include: (1) IHS patients who successfully register and/or opt-in for a IHS PHR account and whose identity has been verified; (2) IHS Information Technology (IT) staff and/or their approved contractors who may need to enter identifying, administrative information into the system to initiate, support and maintain electronic services for PHR participants; and (3) in the future, personal and other representatives of patients who have been granted or delegated access to a patient's IHS PHR account including, but not limited to, family members, friends, legal guardians, as well as non-IHS health care providers, IHS health care providers, and certain IHS administrative staff.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

The system will contain the following categories of administrative records and PII data elements pertaining to system users:

2. System Usage Information, including date and type of transaction; web analytics information for the purpose of monitoring, researching and preparing reports on site usage; patient medical record number (MRN); and other administrative data needed to administer PHR roles and services.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

25 U.S.C. 1662.

PURPOSE(S):

Registration information will be used to register and verify the identity of patient-users (and, in the future, their representatives), to assign and verify administrators of the PHR portal, to retrieve a patient's information to perform specific functions, to allow access to specific information and to provide other associated PHR electronic services in current and future applications of the PHR program. The registrar has the capacity to authenticate personal representatives or those who are authorized by the patient to create the account in lieu of the patient.

System usage information may be used (in aggregate and/or anonymized form, whenever possible) to create administrative business reports for system operators and IHS managers who are responsible for ensuring that the PHR system is meeting performance expectations and is in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. Administrative information may also be used for evaluation to support program improvement, including IHS approved research studies.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

Records in this system may contain information protected by 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (i.e., individually identifiable health information). Disclosure of this information must comply with the requirements of these regulations.

1. Disclosure of information in this system of records may be made to contractors and other individuals, organizations, private or public agencies with whom the IHS has a contract or agreement, to perform such services as the IHS may deem practical for the purposes of administering the PHR program, or to perform other such services as IHS deems appropriate and practical for the purposes of administering IHS programs, policies, regulations, rules, executive orders, and statutes.

The IHS must be able to give contractors whatever administrative information is necessary to fulfill their duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract.

2. The IHS may disclose information that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of the law whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule, or order issuedpursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, or Tribal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order. The IHS may also disclose the names and addresses of IHS patients to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal, or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

The IHS must be able to comply with the requirements of agencies charged with enforcing the law and conducting investigations. The IHS must also be able to provide information to State or local agencies charged with protecting the public's health as set forth in State law.

3. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) for it to perform its records management inspection responsibilities and its role as Archivist of the United States under authority of Title 44 of the United States Code.

In general, NARA is responsible for the physical maintenance and archiving of the Federal Government's records that are no longer actively used but which may be appropriate for preservation. The IHS must be able to turn records over to these agencies in order to determine the proper disposition of such records.

4. Information may be disclosed to the United States Department of Justice or Assistant United States Attorneys in order to prosecute or defend litigation involving or pertaining to the United States, or in which the United States has an interest.

5. IHS may disclose information from these records in litigations and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim when:

a. IHS has determined that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim and would help in the effective representation of the affected party listed in subsections (i) through (iv) below, and that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected. Such disclosure may be made to the HHS/OGC, when any of the following is a party to litigation and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim or has an interest in the litigation and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim:

(i) HHS or any component thereof; or

(ii) Any HHS employee in his or her official capacity; or

(iii) Any HHS employee in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ (or HHS, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or

(iv) The United States or any agency thereof (other than HHS) where HHS/OGC has determined that the litigation and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim is likely to affect HHS or any of its components.

b. In the litigation and/or proceedings related to an administrative claim described in subsection (a) above, information from these records may be disclosed to a court or other tribunal, or to another party before such tribunal in response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the information expressly authorized by such order.

6. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office fromthis system of records in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.For example, in special cases, an individual may request the help of a member of Congress to resolve an issue relating to a matter before the IHS. Consequently, the member of Congress may write the IHS, and the IHS must be able to give sufficient information to respond to the inquiry. If the issue involved the PHR, then the individual's PHR may need to be released to Congress, per that individual's request.

7. Disclosure may be made to other Federal agencies to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs. This routine use permits disclosures by HHS to report a suspected incident of identity theft and provide information or documentation related to or in support of the reported incident.

8. Information, including information about PHR use and user transactions accomplished via the Web site, may be provided to research investigators with IHS Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or IHS Privacy Board approval. Disclosure of this information to research investigators will allow the IHS to evaluate the value of the PHR for purposes of system modification and improvement (i.e., to enhance, advance and promote both the function and the content of the PHR application), and for purposes of promoting patient self-management of health and improved health outcomes.

9. Information may be disclosed to appropriate Federal agencies and Department contractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting HHS's efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security of confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records, if the information disclosed is relevant and necessary for that assistance.

The IHS may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

a. It is suspected or confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

b. HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by HHS or another agency) that rely upon the compromised information; and

c. The disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom the IHS determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by HHS to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or prevision of credit protection services.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:STORAGE:

These administrative records are maintained on paper and electronic media, including hard drive disks, which are backed up to tape at regular intervals.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, user ID, date of registration for IHS PHR electronic services, zip code, the IHS assigned MRN, date of birth and/or social security number, if provided.

SECURITY SAFEGUARDS:

(Technical, Physical and Administrative):

1. Access to and use of the IHS PHR is limited to those individuals whose roles or official duties require such access. The IHS has established security procedures for this system to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize dataaccess requests. The IHS regulates data access with security software that authenticates IHS PHR users and requires individual unique codes and passwords. The IHS provides information security training to all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality. The IHS regularly updates security standards and procedures that are applied to systems and individuals supporting this program.

2. Physical access to computer rooms housing the PHR Administrative Records is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms. The IHS uses contracted security personnel to provide physical security for the buildings housing computer systems and data centers.

3. Data transmissions between operational systems and IHS PHR are protected by telecommunications software and hardware as prescribed by IHS standards and practices. This includes firewalls, encryption, and other security measures necessary to safeguard data as it travels across the IHS-Wide Area Network.

Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States. Records from this system that are needed for audit purposes will be disposed of six (6) years after a user's account becomes inactive. Routine records will be disposed of when the agency determines they are no longer needed for administrative, legal, audit, or other operational purposes. These retention and disposal statements are pursuant to NARA General Records Schedules GRS 20, “Electronic Records”, item 1c (found at Internet Web site address:http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/grs20.html) and GRS 24, “Information Technology Operations and Management Records”, item 6a, (found at Internet Web site address:http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/grs24.html).

Individuals who wish to determine whether a PHR is being maintained under their name in this system, or wish to access and determine the accuracy of the contents of such records, have several options:

1. Submit a written request or apply in person to the IHS facility where the records are located. IHS facility location information can be found athttp://www.IHS.GOV;or

2. Submit a written request or apply in person to the local Privacy Act official at their facility or Area office. Inquiries should include the patient's full name, user ID, date of birth and return address.

3. Individuals seeking to contest the accuracy of records in this system may also write or call their local IHS facility and/or submit to the local Privacy official the IHS 917 form (found at Internet Web address—http://www.hhs.gov/forms/IHS-917_508.pdf).

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

The sources of information for this system of records include the individuals covered by this notice and additional contributors, as listed below:

1. All individuals who successfully register for a PHR account; and

2. IHS staff and/or their contractors and subcontractors who may need to enter information into the system to initiate, support and maintain PHR electronic services for PHR users.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Skeletal Muscle Biology.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.),notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel;Member Conflict: Bacterial Pathogens.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Regulation of Blood Pressure.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Immunology and Pathogenesis Study Section.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Skeletal Muscle.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:

National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Juvenile Protective Factors.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Molecular Neuroscience.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee:Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Biomedical Imaging and Engineering AREA Review.

A working group of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will meet to discuss Task Statement 80, “Natural Gas-Fueled Vessels Other Than LNG Carriers.” This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES:

A MERPAC working group will meet on November 15 and November 16, 2012, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Written comments to be distributed to workinggroup members and placed on MERPAC's Web site are due by November 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The working group will meet at the STAR Center, 2 West Dixie Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004-4312. For further information about the STAR Center hotel facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Mr. Graeme Holman at (954) 920-3222.

To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the work group, which are listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG-2012-0968 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

•Hand delivery:Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

Instructions:All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration athttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register(73 FR 3316).

Docket:For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov.

This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2012-0968, athttp://www.regulations.gov.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

MERPAC is an advisory committee established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the FACA. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

AgendaDay 1

The agenda for the November 15, 2012, working group meeting is as follows:

(1) Develop recommended experience requirements and national knowledge, understanding and proficiency (KUP) guidelines for mariners serving on vessels using natural gas as fuel;

(2) Public comment period;

(3) Discuss and prepare proposed recommendations for the full committee to consider with regards to Task Statement 80, concerning the development of national KUP guidelines for mariners serving on vessels using natural gas as fuel; and

(4) Adjournment of meeting.

Day 2

The agenda for the November 16, 2012, working group meeting is as follows:

(1) Continue discussion on proposed recommendations;

(2) Public comment period;

(3) Discuss and prepare final recommendations for the full committee to consider with regards to Task Statement 80, concerning the development of national KUP guidelines for mariners serving on vessels using natural gas as fuel; and

(4) Adjournment of meeting.

Procedural:A copy of all meeting documentation, including the Task Statement, is available athttps://homeport.uscg.milby using these key strokes: Missions; Port and Waterways Safety; Advisory Committees; MERPAC; and then use the event key. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Henderson as noted in theADDRESSESsection above.

Public oral comment periods will be held during the working group meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time indicated following the last call for comments.

The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

DATES:

Comments Due Date:December 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB approval number and should be sent to: William D. Kelleher, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7233, Washington, DC 20410-4500 or by email atWilliam.Kelleher@hud.gov.

The Notice will inform the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affectedagencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME).

Description of Information Collection:The information collected through HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) (§ 92.502) is used by HUD Field Offices, HUD Headquarters and HOME Program Participating Jurisdictions (PJs). The information on program funds committed and disbursed is used by HUD to track PJ performance and to determine compliance with the statutory 24-month commitment deadline and the regulatory 5-year expenditure deadline (§ 92.500(d)). The project-specific property, tenant, owner and financial data is used to compile annual reports to Congress required at Section 284(b) of the Act, as well as to make program management decisions about how well program participants are achieving the statutory objectives of the HOME Program. Program management reports are generated by IDIS to provide data on the status of program participants' commitment and disbursement of HOME funds. These reports are provided to HUD staff as well as to HOME PJs.

Management reports required in conjunction with the Annual Performance Report (§ 92.509) are used by HUD Field Offices to assess the effectiveness of locally designed programs in meeting specific statutory requirements and by Headquarters in preparing the Annual Report to Congress. Specifically, these reports permit HUD to determine compliance with the requirement that PJs provide a 25% match for HOME funds expended during the Federal fiscal year (Section 220 of the Act) and that program income be used for HOME eligible activities (Section 219 of the Act), as well as the Women and Minority Business Enterprise requirements (§ 92.351(b)).

Financial, project, tenant and owner documentation is used to determine compliance with HOME Program cost limits (Section 212(e) of the Act), eligible activities (§ 92.205), and eligible costs (§ 92.206), as well as to determine whether program participants are achieving the income targeting and affordability requirements of the Act (Sections 214 and 215). Other information collected under Subpart H (Other Federal Requirements) is primarily intended for local program management and is only viewed by HUD during routine monitoring visits. The written agreement with the owner for long-term obligation (§ 92.504) and tenant protections (§ 92.253) are required to ensure that the property owner complies with these important elements of the HOME Program and are also reviewed by HUD during monitoring visits. HUD reviews all other data collection requirements during monitoring to assure compliance with the requirements of Title II and other related laws and authorities.

HUD tracks PJ performance and compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR Parts 91 and 92. PJs use the required information in the execution of their program, and to gauge their own performance in relation to stated goals.

The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

Title I loans are made by private-sector lenders and insured by HUD against loss from defaults. HUD uses this information to evaluate individual lenders on their overall program performance. The information collected is used to determine insurance eligibility and claim eligibility.

DATES:

Comments Due Date:November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0328) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposed:Title I Property Improvement and Manufactured Home Loan Programs.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:Title I loans are made by private-sector lenders and insured by HUD against loss from defaults. HUD uses this information to evaluate individual lenders on their overall program performance. The information collected is used to determine insurance eligibility and claim eligibility.

The revised information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

DATES:

Comments Due Date:December 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Michelle Miller, Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410;michelle.m.miller@hud.gov.

If you are a hearing- or speech-impaired person, you may reach the above telephone numbers through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Programs Data Collection Progress Reporting.

OMB Control Number, if Applicable:2539-0008.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use:This data collection is designed to provide timely information to HUD regarding the implementation progress of the grantees on carrying out Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Grant Programs. The information collection will also be used to provide Congress with status reports as required by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992).

Agency Form Numbers, if Applicable:HUD-96006.

Members of Affected Public:State, tribal, local governments, not-for-profit institutions and for-profit firms located in the U.S.

Estimation of the Total Number of Hours Needed to Prepare the Information Collection including Number of Respondents, Frequency of Response, and Hours of Response:An estimation of the total number of respondents: 254; Frequency of response: 4; Hours per response: 8; Total Burden Hours: 8,128.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection:The obligation to respond to this information collection is mandatory.

Notice of availability; announcement of meeting; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that our draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Complex), which includes Lake Andes NWR (National Wildlife Refuge), Karl E. Mundt NWR, and Lake Andes Wetland Management District, is available for public review and comment. The draft CCP/EA describes how the Service intends to manage these units for the next 15 years.

DATES:

To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments on the draft CCP/EA by November 28, 2012. Submit comments by one of the methods underADDRESSES. We will hold a public meeting; seePublic MeetingunderSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONfor the date, time, and location.

ADDRESSES:

Send your comment or requests for more information by any of the following methods.

Email:bernardo_garza@fws.gov. Include “Lake Andes NWR Complex Draft CCP and EA” in the subject line of the message.

Document Request:A copy of the CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, CO 80228; or by download fromhttp://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.

With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Lake Andes NWR Complex. We started this process through a notice in theFederal Register(72 FR 27328; May, 15, 2007).

The Lake Andes NWR Complex encompasses three distinct units: Lake Andes NWR, Lake Andes Wetland Management District (WMD), and Karl E. Mundt NWR. The Complex lies within the Plains and Prairie Potholes Region (Region) in South Dakota, which is an ecological treasure of biological importance for wildlife, particularly waterfowl and other migratory birds. This Region alone produces approximately 50 percent of the continent's waterfowl population. Hunting and wildlife observation are the two most prevalent public uses on the Complex, followed by fishing and wildlife photography.

Lake Andes NWR was authorized by Executive Order in 1936 and formally established in 1939 to preserve an important piece of shallow water and prairie habitats for waterfowl and other water birds. This 5,639-acre refuge includes Lake Andes, a 4,700-acre lake created by the last ice age. The lake's shallow waters and surrounding grasslands provide optimal feeding, resting, nesting, and brooding habitats for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds, and also songbirds. Water levels in the lake vary from 0 to 12 feet, depending entirely on climatic conditions and precipitation, and create a boom-and-bust fishery dependent on water quality and quantity.

The Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Fund finances the acquisition of waterfowl production areas (WPA) and conservation easements by providing the Department of Interior with monies to acquire migratory bird habitat. The 1958 amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718) authorized the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program and provided for the acquisition of lands in addition to the previously authorized habitats. Receipts from the sale of Duck Stamps are used to acquire habitat under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 715). The Lake Andes WMD was established in 1958 to manage lands purchased under these two authorities to protect wetland and grassland habitat that is critical to our nation's duck population. The District manages 18,782 acres of grassland and wetland habitats in WPAs distributed within Aurora, Bon Homme, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Hanson, Hutchinson, Lincoln, Turner, Union and Yankton Counties in southeastern South Dakota. All of these WPAs are open to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, trapping, and other forms of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Approximately 15,000 people visit the WPAs of the District each year to engage in these types of outdoor recreational opportunities. Additionally, the District protects nearly 80,000 acres of grassland and wetland habitats through easements that prevent habitat degradation or loss on private lands.

Karl E. Mundt NWR was established in 1974, under the legislative authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1534), to protect an area hugging the eastern bank of the Missouri River in Gregory County, South Dakota, and Boyd County, Nebraska, that supports nearly 300 endangered bald eagles each winter. While being the first national wildlife refuge specifically established for the conservation of bald eagles, its riparian forests, prairie, and upland habitats provide important resting, feeding, breeding, and nesting sites for a wide array of neotropical migratory birds, indigenous turkey, and white-tailed deer. Haying, grazing, prescribed burning, invasive plant control, and prairie restoration are used to maintain riparian and upland habitats. Cottonwoods and other native tree species have been planted in the past to anchor riverine banks in attempts to safeguard important bald eagle roosting sites. In order to reduce disturbance to bald eagles, this refuge is currently closed to public use, with the sole exception of occasional guided tours.

BackgroundThe CCP Process

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving the purposes for which their refuge and/or District was established and contributing toward the mission of the System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

Public Outreach

We started the CCP for the Lake Andes NWR Complex in August 2006 by inviting the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks Department and six Native American tribal governments to participate in the planning process. The planning team was assembled in September, and the planning kickoff occurred in October of the same year. We developed a mailing list and sent a planning update to all the individuals and groups in that list. The planning update included basic information on the Complex, the planning process, how the public could provide comments and become involved in the planning process, and the dates, times, and places of the three public meetings we held throughout the Complex in November 2006. At that time and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered and incorporated them in numerous ways. Comments we received cover topics such as invasive plant control on Complex lands, increased hunting and fishingopportunities, improvement of the water quality and fisheries in Lake Andes, public access to Karl E. Mundt NWR, and Complex habitats' management tools (e.g., grazing, prescribed fire, tree plantings and/or removal, etc.). We have considered and evaluated all of these comments, with many incorporated into the various alternatives addressed in the draft CCP and the EA.

CCP Alternatives We Are Considering

During the public scoping process with which we started work on this draft CCP, we, State of South Dakota wildlife officials, a representative of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the public raised several issues. Our draft CCP addresses them. A full description of each alternative is in the EA. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.

Alternative A:

Current management

(no action)

Alternative B:

Modified management

(proposed action)

Alternative C:

Intensive management

Lake Andes' Water and Fishery QualityContinued Complex staff participation with and support of the efforts of the Charles Mix County Lake Andes Restoration Organization, such as sediment removal, soil conservation practices, and control of rough fish population.Same as Alternative A. Additionally, the Complex's staff would investigate the possibility of installing additional fish screens on all tributaries to the lake and under both dikes, and a water delivery system to pump more water onto the lake's South Unit to improve sport fisheries.Same as Alternative B. Additionally, the Complex's staff would seek new partnerships with landowners within the lake's watershed to help improve the lake's water and fisheries quality.Invasive Plants ControlContinue control of invasive plants on infested wetlands, uplands, and riparian lands, using chemical, mechanical, and biological control methods once every 3 years on average.Invasive plant infestations on Lake Andes NWR, Karl E. Mundt NWR, and high-priority WPAs would be treated yearly; all other infestations will be treated every 3 years on average.The Complex's staff would pursue the formation of an invasive plant species “strike team” to more effectively control invasive plants. Prescribed fire would be used in a manner to help decrease cool-season grasses in favor of warm-season native grasses.Monitoring and ResearchContinue limited monitoring of habitat conditions and wildlife populations in wetlands, uplands, and riparian areas. Continue permitting research activities when deemed compatible with the purposes of the units of the Complex.Similar to, but more proactive than, Alternative A. Additionally, monitoring studies and surveys will be expanded, and habitat restoration research led by universities would be actively encouraged and pursued.Similar to, but even more proactive than, Alternative B.

Complex staff would pursue funding and research opportunities with universities on habitat management and more effective surveying methodologies.

Prairie RestorationContinued restoration and enhancement of tall and mixed-grass plant communities to create a mosaic of the required elements for waterfowl and other grass-nesting birds. Previously farmed lands would be restored to native prairie.Similar to Alternative A, but the main focus would be the restoration of a high diversity of native grasses and forbs, along with the pursuance of the purchase of equipment for the collection of desirable plant seeds and construction of necessary infrastructure.Same as Alternative B. However, with increased funding and staffing, the Complex staff would be able to treat and restore many more acres of land than in Alternative B.Public Access to Wildlife-Dependent RecreationKarl E. Mundt NWR to remain closed to most activities, with the exception of limited staff-guided tours. All “Big 6” wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to continue on all waterfowl production areas in the Complex, as well as in the Lake Andes' Owens Bay and Center Units.Similar to Alternative A, except that the staff would study and open areas currently closed to hunting, as well as provide special hunts, if it is deemed compatible and suitable. Boat launching ramps for the lake's Center and South Units would be improved. The addition of an outdoor recreation planner and the remodeling of the headquarters building to include a visitor center and environmental education classroom would allow the expansion of environmental education and interpretation opportunities. Currently closed portions of Lake Andes and Karl E. Mundt NWRs would be opened to wildlife observation and photography, and observation and photography blinds would be provided for the public at appropriate locations on the Complex.Same as Alternative B. Additionally, the staff would develop and execute an outreach plan to expand environmental education and interpretation opportunities throughout the Complex. Also, we would build an observation tower and develop a self-guiding auto tour route on Lake Andes NWR to provide more opportunities for wildlife observation and photography.Funding, Infrastructure, and PartnershipsNo new or added infrastructure or equipment or vehicles, which would be replaced only as needed. Current staffing and funding would preclude pursuance of new partnerships.Staffing and funding would need to be expanded to carry out this plan. The existing headquarters building would need to be remodeled to provide a visitor center and educational facilities, and to accommodate new employees. The maintenance shop and storage buildings would need to be remodeled to correct deficiencies and accommodate expanded staffing and equipment.Staffing and funding would be expanded beyond Alternatives A and B to accomplish this alternative. Instead of remodeling the headquarters building, we would have to build a new visitor center, as well as seed drying and storage facilities.Public Meeting

Opportunity for public input will be provided at the following open house public meeting.

After the public reviews and provides comments on the draft CCP and EA, the planning team will present this document, along with a summary of all substantive public comments, to the Regional Director. The Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each alternative, including information gathered during public review, and will select a preferred alternative for the draft CCP and EA. If the Regional Director finds that no significant impacts would occur, the Regional Director's decision will be disclosed in a finding of no significant impact included in the final CCP. If the Regional Director finds a significant impact would occur, an environmental impact statement will be prepared. If approved, the action in the preferred alternative will compose the final CCP.

Public Availability of Comments

All public comment information provided voluntarily by mail, by phone, or at meetings (e.g., names, addresses, letters of comment, input recorded during meetings) becomes part of the official public record. If requested under the Freedom of Information Act by a private citizen or organization, the Service may provide copies of such information.

Authority

The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, 43 CFR part 46); other appropriate Federal laws and regulations; Executive Order 12996; the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations.

Pursuant to the terms of the listed concession contract, the National Park Service hereby gives public notice that it proposed to continue the concession contract listed below for a period not-to-exceed 1 year from the date of contract expiration.

The contract listed below will expire by its terms on September 30, 2012. Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, the National Park Service has determined that the proposed continuation is necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitledCertain Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate and Products Containing the Same,DN 2919; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov,and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2919”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (SeeHandbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant suchtreatment.See19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically a limited exclusion order against certain devices for improving uniformity used in a backlight module and components thereof and products containing same imported by respondents LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd. both of Seoul, Republic of South Korea (collectively “LG”) and cease and desist orders against LG.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov,and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov.Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:

Unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry.

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on October 22, 2012. Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on November 21, 2012.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-805”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (SeeHandbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.See19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 5) terminating the above-captioned investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2661. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) athttp://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission instituted this investigation on September 21, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility LLC, of Libertyville, Illinois; Motorola Mobility Ireland, of Hamilton, Bermuda; and Motorola Mobility International of Hamilton, Bermuda (collectively, (“Motorola”). 77 FR 58576 (Sept. 21, 2012). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by reason of infringement of seven United States patents. The notice of investigation names Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), as the only respondent.

On October 1, 2012, Motorola filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation. On October 2, 2012, the ALJ granted Motorola's motion and issued the subject ID (Order No. 5), terminating the investigation. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Overpayment Recovery Questionnaire,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

DATES:

Submit comments on or before November 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,on the day following publication of this notice or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or sending an email toDOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email atDOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Authority:

44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Data obtained on the Overpayment Recovery Questionnaire, Form OWCP-20, is necessary to determine whether the recovery of any Black Lung, Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act or Federal Employees' Compensation overpayment may be waived, compromised, terminated, or collected in full. While not affecting the burden, this ICR has been characterized as a revision because the agency has reformatted elements of Form OWCP-20 (e.g., replaced an obsolete logo with the DOL Seal and removed references to the no longer existent Employment Standards Administration).

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.See5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1240-0051. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2012; however, it should be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional information, see the related notice published in theFederal Registeron July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40645).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in theADDRESSESsection within 30 days of publication of this notice in theFederal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1240-0051. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy.

Purpose:The meeting will include a review and discussion of current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2155(f), it has been determined that the meeting will be concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 6, 2012, applicable to workers of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Primary Care Business Unit (Sales) Division, East Hanover, New Jersey. The Department's notice of determination was published in theFederal Registeron January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3501).

At the request of a worker, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.

New information shows that the Primary Care Business Unit (Sales) Division, East Hanover, New Jersey is part of the East Operating Unit.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-80,490 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Primary Care Business Unit (Sales) Division, East Operating Unit, including on-site leased workers from Inventiv Health, Ashfield Healthcare, and Pro Unlimited, East Hanover, New Jersey, and off-site workers of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Primary Care Business Unit (Sales) Division, East Operating Unit in Illinois who report to East Hanover, New Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 3, 2010, through January 6, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 18, 2012, applicable to workers and former workers of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Senior Analyst-Service Program Delivery, Hilliard, Ohio (subject firm). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to telecommunications services. Specifically, the worker group supplies service program delivery services.

At the request of the State of Ohio, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided by company officials show that some workers of the subject firm had wages paid under the name MCI Communication Services, Inc.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in the supply of services to a foreign country.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-81,827 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Senior Analyst-Service Program Delivery (SA-SPD), including workers whose wages were paid under MCI Communication Services, Inc., Hilliard, Ohio (TA-W-81,827), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 20, 2011 through September 18, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on September 18, 2012 through September 18, 2014, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 13, 2012, applicable to workers of Pfizer Therapeutic Research, Pfizer Worldwide Research & Development Division, formerly known as Warner Lambert Company, Central Nervous System Research Unit, Global External Supply Department, Pharmaceutical Development Department, Groton, Connecticut (Pfizer).

At the request of the state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of Pfizer.

The Department has confirmed that the Central Nervous System Research Unit was renamed the Neuroscience Research Unit.

In order to ensure proper worker group coverage, the Department is amending the certification for TA-W-81,385 to reflect the correct name of the subject worker group.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-81,385 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Pfizer Therapeutic Research, Pfizer Worldwide Research & Development Division, formerly known as Warner Lambert Company, Central Nervous System Research Unit (currently known as Neuroscience Research Unit), Global External Supply Department, Pharmaceutical Development Department, Groton, Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 27, 2011 through June 13, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on June 13, 2012 through June 13, 2014, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 27, 2011, applicable to workers and former workers of Quad Graphics, Inc., Sussex, Wisconsin (TA-W-73,441). Workers are engaged in activities related to the production of magazines and catalogues.

At the request of the State of Illinois, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.

New information shows that workers at an Effingham, Illinois facility operated in conjunction with the Sussex, Wisconsin facility and had wages reported under Quad Graphics, Inc., Quad Graphics Printing Corp., and Quad Logistics Services.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by an acquisition from a foreign country of production of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the workers.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,441 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Quad Graphics, Inc., including workers whose wages were reported under Quad Graphics Printing Corp. and Quad Logistics Services (TA-W-73,441H), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 2, 2009, through September 27, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on September 27, 2011 through September 27, 2013, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of October 9, 2012 through October 12, 2012.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and

(3) One of the following must be satisfied:

(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;

(B) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which oneor more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;

(C) Imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;

(D) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and

(4) The increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or

II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) One of the following must be satisfied:

(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;

(B) There has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and

(3) The shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and

(3) The acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met.

(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) Either—

(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) of the Act must be met.

(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—

(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);

(B) An affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or

(C) An affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) The petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—

(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in theFederal Registerunder section 202(f)(3); or

(B) Notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in theFederal Register; and

(3) The workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—

(A) The 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or

(B) Notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.

In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.

The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.

After notice of the petitions was published in theFederal Registerand on the Department's Web site, as required by Section 221 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated investigations of these petitions.

The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of October 9, 2012 through October 12, 2012. These determinations are available on the Department's Web sitetradeact/taa/taa search form.cfmunder the searchable listing of determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free at 888-365-6822.

Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of th